Date:12/08/2003 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2003/08/12/stories/2003081203011300.htm

National

Apex court notice to Karnataka on 85 p.c. reservation

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI AUG. 11. The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Karnataka Government on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Amendment) Rules under which a total of 85 per cent reservation has been made for women, the backward castes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and ex-servicemen.

A Bench, comprising the Chief Justice V.N. Khare and Justice S.B. Sinha, issued the notice on a petition from Gururaj Rayakar and G.S. Madhusudhan Reddy complaining that they were denied employment in view of the 85 per cent reservation policy, which was against the apex court ruling that reservation shall not exceed 50 per cent.

Notice was also issued to the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC).

They submitted that under the rules, 30 per cent of jobs had been reserved for women candidates, 10 per cent for ex-servicemen, 25 per cent for rural candidates and 20 per cent for SC/STs.

They said the KPSC, by a notification dated July 30, 2002, invited applications for appointment to the posts of excise sub-inspector.

Though they fared well in the selection process, they had not been selected in the provisional list released in May, because of the reservation.

The reservation to the posts in question, in excess of 50 per cent, was in violation of the law laid down by the apex court.

The "transgression" of the 50 per cent quota had led to a highly deplorable situation, whereby petitioners having high ranks were denied a place in the selection list.

Hence the present petition, they said.

They contended that the notification providing for reservation in excess of 50 per cent was void, it being violative of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.

They pointed out that reservation in favour of women, rural candidates, ex-servicemen, etc. in employment to the extent it exceeded the total 50 per cent reservation, was not permissible and was unconstitutional.

The petitioners sought a declaration that the notification dated May 22 was illegal and unconstitutional and a direction to the respondents to redo the list of selected candidates.