Related articles
Render justice to the Employment – denied backward class candidates despite their success in the process of recruitment to civil services!
Dr.K.VEERMANAI President , Dravider Kazhagam
In the recently held Civil Services Examinations, the appointment orders have not been sent to a few backward class candidates, who were announced earlier as selected. The authority points out that the backward class candidates come under ‘creamy layer’ category. Allowing the candidates for the examinations, the subsequent interview, later announcing their selection and then denying appointment by quoting creamy layer reason is not legal but inequitable too. Reckoning the income of the parents of the candidates later and branding the successful backward class candidates, ‘creamy layered’ is against the principle of natural justice.
The concept of creamy layer is prescribed only for the backward classes! It is strategic mode of anti reservationists to keep the backward classes away from getting the benefits of reservation. For all these retrograde moves, the concept of creamy layer is used as a weapon.
Those who support the concept of the creamy layer at the apex judiciary or the oppressive forces with the aid of media aim to obstruct the welfare of the oppressed, are answerable to the following. The concept of creamy layer test is neither adumbrated in the Constitution nor in the Government Memorandum (Order) for the employment for OBCs. May we expect replies from the intelligentsia?
1. Whether the ‘creamy layer’ (based on economic criterion) advocated by the Centre for eligibility finds anywhere in the provisions, meant for the reservation of backward classes in Indian Constitution?
2. Whether the Second Backward Class Commission, headed by B.P.Mandal had recommended creamy layer either conceptually or suggestively?
3. Whether the Central Government, headed by the Saviour of Social Justice, the then Prime Minister V.P.Singh issued Official Memorandum mentioning the filtering of the backward class candidates as ‘creamy layered’?
4. When the Bill of First Amendment to the Constitution was proposed in 1951 by the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and Law Minister Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, it was identified that the yardstick to measure the backwardness have to be only ‘socially and educationally’. The lengthy debate on the factor, ‘economically’ was held and finally it was not accepted for deciding the backwardness. Is it not true?
5. Why the economic criterion ingrained creamy layer, is advocated to the backward classes alone? Why not for the upper layer-open competition category? For the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes also, creamy layer is not prescribed. Is it not discriminatory?
(It is not our desire that the SC and the ST categories must also be subjected to the concept of creamy layer)
6. Mandal Commission recommended only 27 per cent reservation for the backward classes population of 52 per cent; the extent of reservation, recommended was for half of the backward class population percentage. Even in this half, where is the need for filtering them as creamy layer? Is it not against Social Justice? (even though 27 per cent reservation is prescribed, so far the reservation obtained by the backward classes remains within 12 per cent only. What a great disappointment!)
7. It is argued that filtering of the backward classes as creamy layered, is to avoid the elite sect in them and to bring up the poor sections to the elevated positions. Whether any aggrieved backward class represented and whether such aggrieved category has petitioned to the rulers or judiciary? Whether the rulers or judiciary had ordered for any survey on the appropriation of reservation benefits by the other backward classes? So far, no such survey was conducted and analysis was carried out. Is it justified to advocate ‘creamy layer’ without any scientific exercise or data!
8. It is to be noted out of the 9 Judges in the Supreme Court Bench (which decided on the validity of 27 per cent reservation of backward classes in Indira Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India, popularly known as Mandal Case) only the majority judgment consisting of 5 Judges, imposed this creamy layer, which was not the crux of the case?
9. Even in the same judgment of the Supreme Court, they have clearly struck down the
10 per cent reservation introduced by the then Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao Government order for the economically poor people! When the same judgment ordered against the economic criterion for reservation, why is then the concept of ‘creamy layer’? What cannot enter from the front door, has been made through back door!
This is not an academic exercise. The future of 120 backward class candidates hangs on this unjust concept?
The 120 candidates who had successfully undergone the process of examinations, interview were not identified as ‘creamy layered’ initially. The final result was announced as if they had been selected for civil services. What is the justification to stop the issuance of the individual employment order under the premise that the backward class candidates, selected are creamy layered at later.
We appreciate the National Commission for the Backward Classes has taken up the cause and also addressed to the Central Government.
Income criterion is not fixed yardstick and it is ever changing and volatile one. Every year income varies for the non fixed income groups like agriculturists, traders, etc. That was why in 1951 the word, ‘economically’ was debated, discussed and not considered wisely for deciding the eligibility for reservation in the First Amendment by inserting the Article
15(4) to the Constitution.
An empathetic approach on the part of the Government is the need of the hour.
Please think over! Abolish ‘creamy layer’ and render social justice.
