Q:I got married recently. My husband is from the northeast and belongs to a scheduled tribe. I am interested in taking the recruitment examination held under the state Public Service Commission. I would like to know whether I am entitled to claim “reservation” status. My father does not belong to any scheduled tribe or scheduled caste.
S. Thapa
Darjeeling
A:Reservations in relation to appointment in public services connote a setting apart of the posts being filled up by special categories of candidates. Article 15 of the Constitution, which otherwise “prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”, allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward class of citizens or of those belonging to scheduled castes and tribes.
Similarly, Article 16, which postulates “equality of opportunity in matters of public employment”, also allows the state to make provisions for reservation of appointments and posts in favour of those who are not adequately represented in such services.
The aim is to provide representation of a class of citizenry who are socially and economically backward (such as the scheduled tribes notified under Article 342).
The question you raise is whether you can take advantage of such affirmative action. This brings to mind Valsamma’s case (Supreme Court, 1996), where a lady (not belonging to the other backward classes group) got married to a member of the Latin Catholic community (which comes under the backward class category).
However, even though she was duly accepted and recognised by the Latin Catholic community, the Supreme Court held that such recognition was irrelevant for the purpose of her entitlement to reservation under Article 16(4).
In this case, it was observed that since it was only after having reached adulthood and having completed her education that she entered that community, Valsamma was not entitled to the facility of reservation given to the said backward class.
Similarly in a case concerning a scheduled caste, the apex court (in 1998) categorically held that a person who does not originally belong to a scheduled caste as notified under Article 341, is not entitled to the benefits of the reservations given to members of such a scheduled caste merely on the basis of her marriage into the said community.
Thus, it is well established that a person who has, so to speak, had a more advantageous start in life but has now voluntarily (through marriage) become a member of a backward class or scheduled tribe, cannot be entitled to or eligible for the benefits of reservation under Article 15(4) or 16(4) as the case may be.
Allowing such acquisition of status through voluntary mobility into these categories would open the doors to rampant fraud on the Constitution and indeed frustrate the very objective of the public policy of affirmative action underlying these Articles.
Following the same reasoning, it appears that you cannot by your voluntary act of marriage, ipso facto, become entitled to claim the benefits of reservation.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
