[AI] some clarifications

shobhan shobhan19jnu at gmail.com
Wed May 16 06:57:42 CDT 2007


Really this is the confussion that need to understand very soon.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nikhil Jain" <nik31 at rediffmail.com>
To: <accessindia at accessindia.org.in>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:14 AM
Subject: [AI] some clarifications



This is in response to the ongoing discussion on nonimplementation of 
reservation in teaching posts appointments in institutions of higher 
learning with specific reference to D.U.

It may be recalled that inspite of a resolution passed by the EC of DU in 
1994, the PWD act of 1995 and the judgment of Justice Sikri in 2001, 
violation of the 100 point roster that identifies the seats due to be 
reserved for the persons with disability has been chronic. It is pertinent 
to point out that while violation has been committed by almost every college 
affiliated to DU. The degree of violation is much higher in the university 
departments where the university administration is directly responsible for 
appointments. It is pertinent to emphasise here that even after 13 years 
since the promulgation of EC resolution of 1994, not even a single person 
with disability has been allowed to avail their constitutionally and legally 
guaranteed right to gainful employment.

These opening remarks are being made to set the ongoing discussion and the 
differences of opinion expressed there in into context. It may be recalled 
that the current discussion is based on conflicting evaluation of certain 
moves made by the DU towards fulfillment of 100 point roster and the backlog 
created owing to it's nonimplementation for several years.

One of our esteemed discussant believes that the recent steps will have 
salutary effects in resolving the problems in the implementation of 
reservation policy for persons with disability. He argues that the current 
initiative by DU amounts to centralization of appointment process for 
disabled candidates. Further more, he argues that this would be beneficial 
for disabled candidates since, in his opinion, the university authorities 
are less biased than the college authorities.

I will like to argue that not only has our friend misunderstood the 
university advertisement No.Estab.IV/195/2007, dated May 8 2007, he also 
tries to understand the university initiative by posing a wrong debate. I 
would present my alternative on both these issues hoping to clarify some of 
the confusions arising from the discussion.

I believe that understanding nonimplementing of quota through perceived 
biases of the appointing authorities may not take our struggle very far. To 
begin with administrative bias is not the monopoly of the colleges. Infact 
in the University of Delhi, the university authorities have been much 
greater violators. As already pointed out, they have not appointed even a 
single disabled candidate in the university departments. Therefore, disabled 
candidates have to face administrative bias both in the colleges and in the 
university.

What is the way out then? I believe that way out is to compel the 
authorities to implement the provisions of 100 point roster. The 100 point 
roster guarantees two things. First, it identifies the seat due to be 
reserved for disabled candidates i.e the first, 34th and 67th seats falling 
vacant. Secondly it identifies the basic unit of calculating the roster i.e 
the entire cadre of teaching posts in the college, and faculties in the case 
of university departments. Such prior identification of seats puts a stop at 
administrative manipulation which has been the bane of reservation policy.

Till date our experience has been that appointing authorities deny 
appointments to disabled candidates by not identifying the seats due to be 
reserved. Consequently disabled candidates have to appear with general 
candidates in interviews, thus allowing authorities to reject them by 
invoking the criteria of candidates "not found suitable".

In fact compelling disabled candidates to compete with general candidates in 
order to secure reservation is a violation of Indian reservation policy. 
Indian reservation policy is quite clear that candidates from different 
categories can not be made to compete with each-other. That is why in every 
reservation roster seats due to be reserved are earmarked category-wise. 
Even in 100 point roster, not only are the seats identified for the 
reservation but at the same time the reserved seats are clearly demarcated 
for different categories of disabilities. Dilution of these provisions of 
100 point roster is the route of all manipulation and the resultant 
nonimplementation of reservation for persons with disability.

Thus we see that nonimplementation is not a result of some vague biases but 
a result of a tangible manipulation of 100 point roster. Hence I believe 
that our evaluation of the recent initiative of the university should be 
based on it's degree of fidelity with the 100 point roster. The university 
advertisement fails in this litmus test. The advertisement mentions several 
university departments (and not colleges as is being confused) with 
vacancies. However, it fails to earmark the vacancies due to be reserved as 
per the 100 point roster.

This is a big violation since in the absence of seats being earmarked, 
disabled candidates and general candidates would be interviewed for the same 
cluster of seats. The situation is therefore ripe for biased administrators 
to deny reservation by declaring disabled candidate unsuitable. Very 
recently the Hansraj College utilized this very loophole to deny appointment 
to disabled candidates in the departments of history and Sanskrit even when 
the disabled candidates in question had high first division marks.

I believe, therefore, that the positive evaluation of the university 
initiative by our esteemed colleague is misplaced. He is equally misplaced 
in understanding that the current advertisement is for centralization of 
college appointment for disabled candidates. This is owing to a 
misunderstanding of the advertisement.

Those who have read the advertisement may notice that it contains three 
paragraphs. The first paragraph deals with vacancies that exist in different 
university departments. These vacancies were advertised way back on 
27-06-2006. This paragraph also mentions that the last date for application 
to these vacancies is 25-05-2007 for disabled candidates. The second 
paragraph mentions that those candidates who have already applied for these 
posts before, need not apply again.

Thus the first two paragraphs are concerned solely with appointment to 
university departments. Only the third paragraph is concerned with the 
college appointments. Here the university suggests that disabled candidates 
may get themselves registered with the deputy registrar so that their 
details may be provided to the colleges as per requirement. Hence, this is 
more in the nature of making a data bank and has little to do with 
restructuring appointment process.

In sum we believe that the initiative by DU is highly retrograde in nature. 
It violates the 100 point roster that is the strongest security for ensuring 
reservation for the persons with disability. Therefore I appeal that people 
should not be hoodwinked by such chicanery rather they should be more 
vigilant to undo any attempt of the DU which violates the 3 % reservation. 
Moreover, we should also advocate the need to have the persons with 
disability as Liasion officers to have a vigil over the implementation of 
100 point roster.

Note: "My statement made above do not intend or attempt to stop any one for 
applying for the said posts. I would rather like to appeal all of you to 
pour in with your applications so that DU authorities can not state in the 
media that there is a dearth of disabled candidates.

Thanks a lot for bearing with me for so long.

With love and care.

Nikhil Jain
To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-request at accessindia.org.in with 
the subject unsubscribe.

To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please 
visit the list home page at
  http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in 




More information about the AccessIndia mailing list