New Delhi, Sept 15: The Supreme Court on Monday said that
seats remaining vacant after the implementation of 27 per cent
OBC quota in central educational institutions like IITs and
IIMs will go to general category candidates and it would be
"desirable" not to have huge difference in cut-off marks.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice K
G Balakrishnan, which on April 10 had upheld the validity of
the controversial law providing quota, was unanimous that
there was no confusion on the issue as the three judges had
clearly stated that no seats would go vacant.
The anti-quota petitioners drew the attention of the
bench that even after the implementation of the law -- the
Central Educational Institution (Reservation in admission) --
seats have remained vacant and there was a confusion over it.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal referred to the two
judgements, one written by Justices Arijit Pasayat and C K
Thakker and another by Justice Dalveer Bhandari, to buttress
the stand that the seats added in the 27 per cent OBC quota
which remained vacant after implementation of the Act cannot
go waste.
"What is the confusion. It was clarified in the judgement
itself that the seats remaining vacant will go to the General
Category," Justice Pasayat said.
"Both the judgements clearly said that such vacant seats
will go to the general category," added Justice Bhandari.
At the outset when Venugopal said there was a need for
clarification on the aspect of vacant seats, Justice Pasayat
said, "This (wasting of seats) cannot be allowed. It will go
back to the general category".
"The reservation was not for ensuring that even if they
(OBC) are not there, it will not go to others," Pasayat said
adding that "it is very clear. The intention was that don`t
leave the seats vacant. The intention was to give better
education."
The anti-quota petitioners claimed that 432 seats
remained vacant and if the Ministry of Human Resource was not
adhering to the apex court judgement then it was inviting
contempt.
However, Solicitor General G E Vahanvati said he will
get back to the Court after seeking instructions from the
Centre whether seats are vacant or not.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on
September 29.
The issue of cut-off marks also came up for discussion
during the brief hearing in which Venugopal said merit should
not be totally sacrificed.
He said while Justice Pasayat and Thakker were of the
view that the difference in cut-off marks between the two
category cannot be more than five marks Justice Bhandari had
extended it to 10 marks.
Both the judgements clearly stated that "don`t deviate
from merit", the senior advocate said.
Though the Bench was in agreement with the submission,
Justice Pasayat observed "it had not given a specific
direction but had said that it is desirable not to have much
difference".
The Bench was of the view that huge difference in the
cut-off marks would be "counter-productive" to the excellence
of the educational institutions.
Venugopal had submitted that the difference in the
cut-off marks should not be such that it affects the basic
standards of education and the cut-off marks should not be
below a particular limit which would make it difficult with
the students and faculty to cope up with the curriculum.
Bureau Report
