Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
Explainer: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019 was passed by Parliament today. It replaces an Ordinance that was promulgated in February 2019. The Bill brings about two major changes in reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions. Firstly, it establishes that for the purpose of reservation, a university/college would be considered as one single unit. This means that posts of the same level across all departments (such as assistant professor) in a university would be grouped together when calculating the total number of reserved seats. Secondly, it extends reservations beyond Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), to include socially and educationally backward classes (OBC) and economically weaker sections (EWS).
In this post, we look at how the Bill will impact the reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions.
How has teachers’ reservation been implemented in the past?
In 2006, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued guidelines for teacher reservations in central educational institutions.[1] These guidelines required central educational institutions to consider a university as one unit for the purpose of reservation. It stated that reservations would be calculated using a roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension.[2]
However, the UGC Guidelines (2006) were challenged in the Allahabad High Court in 2017. The question before the Court was whether a university should be taken as a unit when applying the roster.[3] The Court found that individual departments should be taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation, instead of universities. It held that taking a university as a unit could result in some departments having only reserved candidates and others having only unreserved candidates. Following the judgment, departments were treated as a single unit for reservation at central educational institutions.
In March 2019, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019 was promulgated, and passed as a Bill in July 2019. The Bill overturns the Allahabad High Court judgment and reverts to the system where a university is regarded as one unit for the purpose of reservation.
Over the years, there has been deliberation on whether the university or department should be taken as a unit for reservation of teaching posts. This has to do with the manner in which the roster system [4]specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension is applied in both situations.
What was the roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension?
The roster system calculates reservation based on cadre strength. A cadre includes all posts available to be filled within a unit, i.e. either department or university. For instance, all associate professor positions within a university or within a department would be considered a cadre.
At present, the roster system is applied in two ways, i.e., the 13-point system or the 200-point system. For initial recruitment in both systems, all posts in a cadre are numbered and allocated. This means that in a cadre with 18 posts, each post will be assigned a number from 1 to 18 and allocated to a particular category, i.e., either SC, ST, OBC, EWS or unreserved. Therefore, hiring of teachers for all posts takes place on the basis of this list.
However, there are two fundamental differences between the 200 point and 13 point systems.
When a university is taken as the unit for reservation, the 200-point system is used, as there tend to be more than 13 posts in a university. However, when a department is taken as a unit, the 13-point system or the 200-point system may be used, depending on the size of the department.
How are the number of reserved seats calculated in the roster system?
For both the systems, the number of seats reserved for SC, ST, OBC, and EWS is determined by multiplying the cadre strength with the percentage of reservation prescribed by the Constitution. The percentage of reserved seats for each category is as follows: (i) 7.5% for ST, (ii) 15% for SC, (iii) 27% for OBC, and (iv) 10% for EWS.
If the number of posts needed to be filled is 200, and the percentage of reservation for ST is 7.5%, we would use the following formula to calculate the number of reserved posts for that class:
Number of posts needed to be filled x percentage of reservation/100
= 200 x 7.5/100
= 15
Thus, the number of seats reserved for ST in a cadre with the strength of 200 posts is 15. Using the same formula, the number of seats reserved for SC is 30, OBC is 54, and EWS is 20.
How are these reserved seats distributed across posts?
To determine the position of each reserved seat in the roster systems, 100 is divided by the percentage of the reservation for each category. For instance, the OBC quota is 27%. Therefore, 100/27 = 3.7, that is, approximately every 4th post in the cadre list. Likewise, SC is approximately every 7th post, ST is approximately every 14th post, and EWS will be approximately every 10th post.
What is the difference in the application of the roster between the department and university systems?
To demonstrate the difference between the department and university systems, a hypothetical example of a university with 200 posts for associate professors, and nine departments with varying number of posts is provided below.
When the university is taken as a unit
|
If the university is taken as the unit for reservation, then the total number of posts for the reserved categories would be 119 (i.e., 30 for SC, 15 for ST, 54 for OBC, and 20 for EWS), whereas the number of unreserved (UR) seats would be 81. This is mentioned in Table 1. The method of calculation of these numbers is based on the roster system prescribed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension. |
Table 1: No. of posts reserved when university is taken as a unit
|
When departments are taken as separate units
|
If different departments of a university are taken as separate units for reservation, then the total number of posts for the reserved categories would be 101 (i.e., 25 for SC, 9 for ST, 49 for OBC, and 18 for EWS), whereas the number of unreserved (UR) seats would be 99. This is mentioned in Table 2. The method of calculation of these numbers is based on the roster system prescribed by the Explainer: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019 The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Bill, 2019 was passed by Parliament today. It replaces an Ordinance that was promulgated in February 2019. The Bill brings about two major changes in reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions. Firstly, it establishes that for the purpose of reservation, a university/college would be considered as one single unit. This means that posts of the same level across all departments (such as assistant professor) in a university would be grouped together when calculating the total number of reserved seats. Secondly, it extends reservations beyond Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), to include socially and educationally backward classes (OBC) and economically weaker sections (EWS). In this post, we look at how the Bill will impact the reservation of teaching posts in central educational institutions. How has teachers’ reservation been implemented in the past? In 2006, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued guidelines for teacher reservations in central educational institutions.[1] These guidelines required central educational institutions to consider a university as one unit for the purpose of reservation. It stated that reservations would be calculated using a roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension.[2] However, the UGC Guidelines (2006) were challenged in the Allahabad High Court in 2017. The question before the Court was whether a university should be taken as a unit when applying the roster.[3] The Court found that individual departments should be taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation, instead of universities. It held that taking a university as a unit could result in some departments having only reserved candidates and others having only unreserved candidates. Following the judgment, departments were treated as a single unit for reservation at central educational institutions. In March 2019, the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Ordinance, 2019 was promulgated, and passed as a Bill in July 2019. The Bill overturns the Allahabad High Court judgment and reverts to the system where a university is regarded as one unit for the purpose of reservation. Over the years, there has been deliberation on whether the university or department should be taken as a unit for reservation of teaching posts. This has to do with the manner in which the roster system [4]specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension is applied in both situations. What was the roster system specified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension? The roster system calculates reservation based on cadre strength. A cadre includes all posts available to be filled within a unit, i.e. either department or university. For instance, all associate professor positions within a university or within a department would be considered a cadre. At present, the roster system is applied in two ways, i.e., the 13-point system or the 200-point system. For initial recruitment in both systems, all posts in a cadre are numbered and allocated. This means that in a cadre with 18 posts, each post will be assigned a number from 1 to 18 and allocated to a particular category, i.e., either SC, ST, OBC, EWS or unreserved. Therefore, hiring of teachers for all posts takes place on the basis of this list. However, there are two fundamental differences between the 200 point and 13 point systems.
When a university is taken as the unit for reservation, the 200-point system is used, as there tend to be more than 13 posts in a university. However, when a department is taken as a unit, the 13-point system or the 200-point system may be used, depending on the size of the department. How are the number of reserved seats calculated in the roster system? For both the systems, the number of seats reserved for SC, ST, OBC, and EWS is determined by multiplying the cadre strength with the percentage of reservation prescribed by the Constitution. The percentage of reserved seats for each category is as follows: (i) 7.5% for ST, (ii) 15% for SC, (iii) 27% for OBC, and (iv) 10% for EWS. If the number of posts needed to be filled is 200, and the percentage of reservation for ST is 7.5%, we would use the following formula to calculate the number of reserved posts for that class: Number of posts needed to be filled x percentage of reservation/100 = 200 x 7.5/100 = 15 Thus, the number of seats reserved for ST in a cadre with the strength of 200 posts is 15. Using the same formula, the number of seats reserved for SC is 30, OBC is 54, and EWS is 20. How are these reserved seats distributed across posts? To determine the position of each reserved seat in the roster systems, 100 is divided by the percentage of the reservation for each category. For instance, the OBC quota is 27%. Therefore, 100/27 = 3.7, that is, approximately every 4th post in the cadre list. Likewise, SC is approximately every 7th post, ST is approximately every 14th post, and EWS will be approximately every 10th post. What is the difference in the application of the roster between the department and university systems? To demonstrate the difference between the department and university systems, a hypothetical example of a university with 200 posts for associate professors, and nine departments with varying number of posts is provided below. When the university is taken as a unit
When departments are taken as separate units
As can be seen in the above example, if departments are taken as separate units, there is a decrease in the number of reserved posts. The number of reserved posts decreased by five for SC, six for ST, five for OBC, and two for EWS. This example is corroborated by the special leave petition filed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Supreme Court against the 2017 order of Allahabad High Court. It demonstrates that the number of reserved seats in Banaras Hindu University (BHU) decreased when departments were taken as separate units. The number of reserved posts decreased by 170 for SC, 114 for ST, and 90 for OBC.[5] EWS was not included in the reservation system when the BHU numbers were calculated. Thus, the trade off between the two systems is as follows. On the one hand, when the university is taken as a unit there is a possibility that some departments would only have reserved candidates and others would have only unreserved candidates. However, when a department is taken as a unit, there is a decrease in the total number of reserved posts within the university.
[1] Circular No. F. 1-5/2006(SCT), University Grants Commission, 2006. [2] O.M. No. 36012/2/96-Esst. (Res), ‘Reservation Roster- Post based- Implementation of the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, July 1997, http://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02adm/36012_2_96_Estt(Res).pdf. [3] Vivekanand Tiwari v. Union of India, Writ petition no. 43260, Allahabad High Court, April 2017. [4] O.M. No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res), ‘Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in direct recruitment in civil posts and services in the Government of India’, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/ewsf28fT.PDF. [5] Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court by Ministry of Human Resource Development, January 2019, as reported in Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-the-unit-in-teachers-quota-5554261/. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension. |
Table 2: No. of posts reserved when department is taken as the unit
Note: Number of posts in each department are hypothetical. |
As can be seen in the above example, if departments are taken as separate units, there is a decrease in the number of reserved posts. The number of reserved posts decreased by five for SC, six for ST, five for OBC, and two for EWS. This example is corroborated by the special leave petition filed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Supreme Court against the 2017 order of Allahabad High Court. It demonstrates that the number of reserved seats in Banaras Hindu University (BHU) decreased when departments were taken as separate units. The number of reserved posts decreased by 170 for SC, 114 for ST, and 90 for OBC.[5] EWS was not included in the reservation system when the BHU numbers were calculated.
Thus, the trade off between the two systems is as follows. On the one hand, when the university is taken as a unit there is a possibility that some departments would only have reserved candidates and others would have only unreserved candidates. However, when a department is taken as a unit, there is a decrease in the total number of reserved posts within the university.
[1] Circular No. F. 1-5/2006(SCT), University Grants Commission, 2006.
[2] O.M. No. 36012/2/96-Esst. (Res), ‘Reservation Roster- Post based- Implementation of the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, July 1997, http://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02adm/36012_2_96_Estt(Res).pdf.
[3] Vivekanand Tiwari v. Union of India, Writ petition no. 43260, Allahabad High Court, April 2017.
[4] O.M. No.36039/1/2019-Estt (Res), ‘Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in direct recruitment in civil posts and services in the Government of India’, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/ewsf28fT.PDF.
[5] Special Leave Petition filed in Supreme Court by Ministry of Human Resource Development, January 2019, as reported in Indian Express, https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-the-unit-in-teachers-quota-5554261/.
The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018 is listed for passage in Rajya Sabha today. Earlier this year, the Bill was introduced and passed in Lok Sabha. It provides for the prevention, rescue, and rehabilitation of trafficked persons. If the Bill is not passed today, it will lapse with the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha. In this post, we analyse the Bill in its current form.
What was the need for a new law?
According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 8,132 human trafficking cases were reported in India in 2016 under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[i] In the same year, 23,117 trafficking victims were rescued. Of these, the highest number of persons were trafficked for forced labour (45.5%), followed by prostitution (21.5%). Table 1 provides details of persons trafficked for various purposes (as of 2016).
Table 1: Victims rescued by type of purpose of trafficking
| Purpose | 2016 | (as a %) |
| Forced labour | 10,509 | 45.5 |
| Prostitution | 4,980 | 21.5 |
| Other forms of sexual exploitation | 2,590 | 11.5 |
| Domestic servitude | 412 | 1.8 |
| Forced marriage | 349 | 1.5 |
| Petty crimes | 212 | 0.9 |
| Child pornography | 162 | 0.7 |
| Begging | 71 | 0.3 |
| Drug peddling | 8 | 0 |
| Removal of organs | 2 | 0 |
| Other reasons | 3,824 | 16.5 |
| Total persons | 23,117 | 100 |
Source: Human Trafficking, Crime in India, 2016, National Crime Records Bureau; PRS
In India, the offence of trafficking is dealt with under different laws. Trafficking is primarily an offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It defines trafficking to include recruiting, transporting, or harboring persons by force or other means, for exploitation. In addition, there are a range of laws presently which deal with bonded labour, exploitation of children, and commercial sexual exploitation. Each of these laws operate independently, have their own enforcement machinery and prescribe penalties for offences related to trafficking.
In 2015, pursuant to a Supreme Court order, the Ministry of Women and Child Development constituted a Committee to identify gaps in the current legislation on trafficking and to examine the feasibility of a comprehensive legislation on trafficking.[ii] Consequently, the Trafficking Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha by the Minister of Women and Child Development, Ms. Maneka Gandhi in July, 2018.
The Bill provides for the investigation of trafficking cases, and rescue and rehabilitation of trafficked victims. It includes trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, slavery, or forced removal of organs. In addition, the law also considers trafficking for certain purposes, such as for begging or for inducing early sexual maturity, to be an aggravated form of trafficking. These forms of trafficking attract a higher punishment.
In order to punish trafficking, the Bill provides for the setting up of investigation and rehabilitation authorities at the district, state and national level. The primary investigation responsibility lies with anti-trafficking police officers and anti-trafficking units constituted at the district level. The authority at the national level can take over investigation of cases referred to it by two or more states.
The Bill also provides for the setting up of Protection Homes and Rehabilitation Homes to provide care and rehabilitation to the victims. The Bill supplements the rehabilitation efforts through a Rehabilitation Fund, which will be used to set up the Protection and Rehabilitation Homes. Special Courts will be designated in every district to complete trial of trafficking cases within a year.
Additionally, the Bill specifies penalties for various offences including for promotion of trafficking and trafficking with the aid of media. All offences are cognizable (i.e. police officer can arrest without a warrant) and non-bailable. If a person is found guilty under the Bill and also under any other law, the punishment which is higher will apply to the offender.
The current Bill does not replace but adds to the existing legal framework. As discussed above, currently a range of laws deal with various aspects of trafficking. For instance, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986 covers trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation while the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 deals with punishment for employment of bonded labour. These laws specify their own procedures for enforcement and rehabilitation.
One of the challenges with the Bill is that these laws will continue to be in force after the Bill. Since each of these laws have different procedures, it is unclear as to which procedure will apply in certain cases of trafficking. This may result in overlap in implementation of these laws. For instance, under the ITPA, 1986, Protective Homes provide for rehabilitation of victims of sexual exploitation. The Bill also provides for setting up of Protection Homes. When a victim of sexual exploitation is rescued, it is not clear as to which of these Homes she will be sent to. Further, each of these laws designate special courts to hear offences. The question arises as to which of these courts will hear the case.
Are the offences in the Bill reasonably tailored?
As discussed earlier, the Bill imposes penalties for various offences connected with trafficking. One of the offences states that if trafficking is committed on a premise, it will be presumed that the owner of the premise had knowledge of the offence. The implication of this would be that if an owner lives in a different city, say Delhi, and lets out his house in Mumbai to another person, and this person is discovered to be detaining girls for sexual exploitation on the premise, it will be presumed that the owner knew about the commission of the offence. In such circumstances, he will have to prove that he did not know about the offence being committed on his premise. This provision is a departure from the standard principle in criminal law where the guilt of the accused has to be proved and not presumed.
There are other laws where the owner of a property is presumed guilty. However, the prosecution is required to prove certain facts before presuming his guilt. For instance, under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 it is presumed that the owner has knowledge of an offence committed on his property. However, the Bill clarifies that the presumption will only apply if the prosecution can prove that the accused was connected with the circumstances of the case. For instance, an owner of a truck is not presumed to be guilty only because his truck was used for transporting drugs.[iii] However, he may be considered guilty if he was also driving the truck in which drugs were transported.[iv] The Bill does not contain such safeguards and this provision may therefore violate Article 21 of the Constitution which requires that laws which deprive a person of his life or personal liberty should be fair and reasonable.[v]
Does the Bill provide any protection to trafficking victims compelled to commit crimes?
The Bill provides immunity to a victim who commits an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years. Immunity to victims is desirable to ensure that they are not prosecuted for committing crimes which are a direct consequence of them being trafficked.[vi] However, the Bill provides immunity only for serious crimes. For instance, a trafficked victim who commits murder under coercion of his traffickers may be able to claim immunity from being tried for murder. However, if a trafficked victim commits petty theft (e.g. pickpocketing) under coercion of his traffickers, he will not be able to claim immunity.
Further, the immunity is only available when the victim can show that the offence was committed under coercion, threat, intimidation or undue influence, and there was a reasonable apprehension of death or injury. Therefore, it may be argued that the threshold to claim immunity from prosecution may be too high and may defeat the purpose for providing such immunity.
[i]. ‘Crime in India’ 2016, National Crime Records Bureau.
[ii]. Prajwala vs. Union of India 2016 (1) SCALE 298.
[iii]. Bhola Singh vs. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 653.
[iv]. Sushant Gupta vs. Union of India 2014 (308) ELT 661 (All.).
[v] Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India 1978 AIR 597.
[vi]. Guideline 7, ‘Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking’, OHCHR, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Traffickingen.pdf.
