The Slip between the Reservation Policy and the Roster System

Ever since the adjournment motion moved by me on the last day of the Autumn Session was

not carried for lack of support from fellow legislators, I have been receiving queries as to what

was it about the Roster System that I had wanted to present before the House. So in order to

try and give a definite explanation, I am taking the route of this newspaper article.

Readers kindly bear with me though as this is my first attempt at writing, and I am able to do

this article only because of encouragement and assistance of well-wishers, who feel that the

critical message about the slip between the cup and the lip that I could not put across in the

Assembly that day should not be lost.

Raising discussion in the Legislature

To start with, during the Question Hour proceedings on 15th September, I had put a Starred

Question to the Government as to what type of Reservation Policy was followed for the last

50 years, and the reply given was “Reservation Policy is applied for the vacancies advertised

in each recruitment”.

Based upon the categorical reply, coming from no less than the Chief Minister in-charge

Personnel, it made me question whether the principle of the Reservation Policy was actually

being followed in letter and spirit by the Roster System, or was there a slip somewhere.

The Speaker of the Assembly had admitted a Resolution submitted by me on the subject of

Roster System; but as the Resolution could not be taken up during Private Members Business

for lack of time, I had little option other than to move a motion for adjournment to discuss

the subject as a matter of urgent public importance.

What I had prepared to speak was on ‘the implementation of the Roster System and the

sudden disparity in reservation opportunity to candidates from different communities’, but

as the adjournment motion could not be carried in the House, only the initial part of my

prepared script found time to be read out.

In the following paragraphs therefore, I present a whole extract of my prepared script in

verbatim, with sincere hope that the understanding I have on the Reservation Policy may be

of benefit to others who may wish to look at the flaw in the Roster System.

“

… Before the month of April this year, the term ‘Roster System’ was perhaps nowhere in our

imagination and understanding. So suddenly when it came into the limelight after a High

Court order, and thereafter being much quoted on local news and in public discourse,

indigenous citizens of the state started wanting to know what is this ‘Roster System’? and

how is it going to affect the already contentious issue of Reservation Policy?

Such a delicate situation gave room for many to volunteer pitching in their views on the

subject, and being limited by incomplete explanations, people at large were asking here andthere, including pointing a finger at some of us who have been raising the issue of Reservation

Policy publicly.

Amidst this growing anxiety, we saw 2 pertinent developments in May and June. That is, 1 –

an Office Memorandum or OM of the Personnel Department on Maintenance of Reservation

Roster; and 2 – the first job advertisement wherein, against particular posts, reservation was

shown in favour of a certain community and not for the other.

Fear of disparity was already in the back of our minds when we read the OM, but the fear

became shockingly real when the job advertisement came out. To say the least, it was a big

blow to the sense of fairness and impartiality, in what is supposed to be equal opportunities

to recruitment in State Government jobs.

That’s when affected candidates belonging to the community being deprived started to

question the Roster System, and even started doubting the intent of the Government in

implementing it without thorough consultation with stakeholders.

As an elected representative, I am duty bound to look into the concerns of young job seekers

in my constituency, and on hearing their grievances I had to do diligence in research to find

out if something was out of place in the Roster System. And what I found, is this –

The OM of 10th May 2022, which lays down the guidelines for the implementation of the

Roster System, is seemingly OK on its own; but it is certainly not in tune with the Reservation

Policy as laid out in the OM of 12th January 1972.

Let us read what guideline ‘A’ of the OM of 10th May 2022 says after the heading ‘Quantum

of Reservation’, and I quote – “The Reservation of Posts in favour of the Scheduled Tribes and

Scheduled Castes will be as per Resolution No. PER 222/71/138 dated 12th January 1972”.

Now allow me to read Resolution PER 222/71/138 dated 12th January 1972, and I shall go

directly to the operational part, which is, and I quote –

a) b) There shall be a reservation of 40% of the vacancies in favour of Khasis and Jaintias;

There shall be a reservation of 40% of the vacancies in favour of Garos.

On a quick reading of the two OMs, it may not be easy to notice, but if we are aware and

careful enough, we find that the OM of 2022 talks about Reservation of ‘Posts’, whereas the

OM of 1972 does not lay down a Resolution on Reservation of ‘Posts’ but rather a Reservation

of ‘Vacancies’.

I’m sure we are all familiar with the difference in meaning between ‘posts’ and ‘vacancies’,

and I hope it explains what I said about the OM of 2022 being “not in tune” with the OM of

1972 … So the Reservation Policy that we have been having all along since 1972, is a

Reservation of Vacancies, and it is only with the OM of 2022 that the Policy has suddenly

changed to a Reservation of Posts.

A brief back story

After the extract of my script, may I jog our memories to the Budget session of the Assembly,

that is in March this year. I had moved a resolution on the State Reservation Policy asking for

a review and revamp of the outdated policy, and I had presented that the OMs sustaining the

policy was flawed on the basis of Census demographics.

Barely a month after the Budget session ended, an Order of Honourable High Court of

Meghalaya, on a Writ Petition which was admitted the previous year, relating to a complaint

on the preparation of Gradation List for matter of promotion in one Government department,

and which involved the consideration of the state Job Reservation Policy; observed that there

is no Roster System in the state, and that the Bench was constrained to raise a question how

Reservation Policy could be implemented without a Roster.

I am not going to go any further into the High Court order, nor into the subsequent Order of

the Honourable High Court of Meghalaya in the suo moto PIL relating to preparation of Roster

… I am going to skip directly to the OM of the Personnel Department, that is the OM of 10th

May 2022 relating to Maintenance of Reservation Roster.

This particular OM is the key action taken by the Government in pursuance of the two

aforesaid High Court orders, and in my humble opinion central to the issue of how candidates

belonging to one community are today being deprived of reservation in vacancies to new

recruitment in posts under State Government service … and I am not just speaking

theoretically.

Look at the public notice issued by MPSC dated 9th September for Corrigendum to earlier job

advertisements relating to 59 posts. Another public notice appeared the following week for

Corrigendum to earlier advertisements relating to 121 posts … We can see the disparity in

reservation allotted to the different categories. Can we remain silent to the negative outcome

of the Roster System in depriving candidates belonging to one community?

Deprived for no fault of theirs, but only because after the preparation of Reservation Roster

as per the guidelines of the new OM, the implementation of the State Job Reservation Policy

has suddenly changed from earlier ‘vacancy’ based reservation to now ‘post’ based

reservation.

The big question is who has authorised this new change in the Reservation Policy? … Can it

even be done without amending the principal OM?

I have to say that this wrong move is like lighting a fire.

Has the Government given any thought to the extent of public anger that will arise out of

suddenly changing the opportunity of reservation between the two major communities of the

state, without first taking the views and consent of the people who are stakeholders? …

Government cannot just do what it likes.

Not one Roster, but twoThere is another thing about the OM of 10th May 2022, that most people may not be aware

of yet; which is, that the OM has put forth not just one Roster System, but in fact two.

One Roster System for posts at Directorate/Head Offices, with Reservation of 40:40 in favour

of the two major communities of the state; and a Second Roster System for posts at District

offices, with Reservation of 80 percent combined, but with preference to local candidates

residing permanently in the District.

Now this condition of “local candidates residing permanently in the District” is going to open

up an entire new controversy, because 50 years of statehood has brought along a migration

of communities in search of livelihood and employment, and Districts are no longer a

demarcation of just one community.

Even as I write this article, DC offices in various Districts are imparting training and giving

instructions on preparing Reservation Roster in every State Government office.

So whether we like it or not, the issue of Roster System is very much real, and the subject of

Reservation Policy cannot just be pushed away aside, or be silenced.

There is this metaphor in English about an ostrich head stuck in the ground, which implies

that it is unreal to think that if we bury our heads in denial, the issue won’t be seen … We

cannot afford to have that kind of attitude.

Rather, we ought to clearly weigh the pessimistic view and the optimistic view, and review

the one-important slip between the Reservation Policy and the Roster System; and in doing

so, also recognize that the future of the young people across the state is in the hands of its

elected representatives.