http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/general-benefits-of-the-obc-quota9 July 2011
General Benefits of the OBC Quota
Percentages and other tricks that educational institutions use to hand
over OBC seats to general category candidates
BY MT Hany Babu
Given the extraordinary noise being raised over admission quotas for
Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India's institutions of higher
learning, a little fact-checking is in order. Right To Information
(RTI) data obtained by the Academic Forum for Social Justice has
brought to light the fact that in 31 colleges affiliated to the
University of Delhi, 4,023—almost 57 per cent—of the 7,024 OBC seats
were either vacant or passed on to general category candidates in
2010. These colleges were given a grant of more than Rs 200 crore for
extra infrastructure to accommodate OBC students. Also, almost 1,000
new teaching posts were created to cope with the increase in numbers.
As it turns out, little of this was used for the benefit of OBC
students, with the gains going instead to other students. By the RTI
data, the number of general category admissions in these 31 colleges
was almost 40 per cent higher than the allotted strength.
This was enabled by several manipulative devices adopted by most
universities. Take the most common of these. Consider students A and
B, who get 80 and 72 marks, respectively, out of 100. What is the
difference in percentage between their marks? Most readers may find
this a trivial question. The mathematically minded will see the catch.
If your answer is 8 per cent, you are wrong. For, B's marks are 10 per
cent below A's marks, since 8 is 10 per cent of 80. However, it is
fair to say that the difference in the marks of A and B is '8
percentage points'.
Now, consider what has been the practice at these learned
institutions. In 2008, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
pronounced a judgment that the 'cut-off marks for OBCs be 10 per cent
below the cut-off marks of general category candidates' (in the Ashoka
Kumar Thakur vs Union of India case). So, central universities like
Jawaharlal Nehru University(JNU) and University of Hyderabad fixed 40
as the cut-off for the general category and 36 for OBCs, the
calculation being that 36 is 10 per cent less than 40. The arithmetic
ingenuity here is in taking 'difference in percentage' in its
strictest sense, even though it is clear the court's judgment of 2008
meant what mathematicians would call 'percentage points'. In demanding
that the cut-off marks for 'OBCs should be set not more than 10 marks
out of 100 below that of the general category', the judges definitely
meant 'percentage points'.
Administrators of central educational institutions, however, refuse to
accept this. In effect, they have set the bar for OBC applicants
higher than the policy intended, thus depriving them of seats funded
by the Government in their name.
This is not their only ploy. Manipulation of the admission process is
rampant in various guises. Institutions, for example, often fix a
higher 'eligibility condition' in the qualifying examination and/or
the admission test conducted by them. For scores below that level, a
candidate is not considered for admission at all; above the specified
level, a candidate is placed on the 'admission threshold'. Thus, the
board of the Indian Medical Council fixed '50 per cent' in the common
medical entrance test as a necessary condition for admission to the
Bachelor's programme at medical colleges. This is a 'cut-off' fixed
'well in time'—as a 2008 Human Resource Development Ministry circular
demanded—by the institutions in question, and will remain constant.
But mere eligibility alone is naturally not sufficient to secure
admission. The marks actually needed vary from year to year, depending
on demand for seats. No institution can fix this cut-off 'well in
time'. In fact, institutions have no control over it, as exemplified
by the skyrocketing cut-off marks in prestigious colleges of Delhi
University this admission season.
Following the apex court judgment of 2008, JNU adopted the 10 per cent
eligibility relaxation for OBCs. But soon, JNU was forced to seek the
legal opinion of its counsel, and went back on its initial decision.
Instead of admitting all eligible OBC candidates above the percentage
of marks fixed at the outset, JNU decided to admit only those OBCs
whose marks did not vary by more than 10 per cent from that of the
last admitted general category candidate.
There was no legal reason to adopt this practice, and by doing so,
again, a substantial number of OBC students were denied admission in
2009 and 2010. Once 'cut-off' was understood as the marks of the last
admitted candidate, OBC prospects were doomed, and a large number of
seats remain unfilled. In 2009, of JNU's 123 seats reserved for OBCs
at the MA/MPhil level, only 22—about 18 per cent—were taken by OBC
candidates and the rest were 'converted' to general category seats.
The University of Delhi had always been a champion of this
interpretation of the rule, as it took only OBC candidates in the 10
per cent bandwidth of the last admitted general student. (Actually,
very few colleges even allowed a 10 per cent relaxation, citing one
technicality or another.) The result was that the university would
announce the date for the 'conversion of vacant OBC seats' right at
the outset of the admission process, as everyone knew that OBC
candidates would never make up the allotted 27 per cent.
Interestingly, many institutions use the phrase 'revert to general
category' instead of 'convert' when reserved category seats are given
to general category candidates—an expression that smacks of the
prejudiced belief that reserved category candidates are grabbing
something that is not due to them.
In September 2010, in response to a writ petition filed by Apurva on
JNU's admission policy, the Delhi High Court said that universities
can only fix their eligibility criteria, and that relaxation for
reserved seats should be on the basis of this criteria. Soon after,
Tanvi Yadav, an OBC candidate seeking admission to University of
Delhi's law programme, approached the High Court. Tanvi had scored 148
marks and the last admitted general category candidate had 172 marks.
If the Faculty of Law had interpreted 'difference in percentage' as it
was meant to be, she would have got admission. Instead, it admitted
OBC candidates with marks only up to 149, and converted hundreds of
OBC seats to the general category. The High Court did not give Tanvi
any relief, as it was already too late, but its judgment of December
2010 made a very important observation: that the university is bound
by the provisions of Apurva vs Union of India, which meant that it had
to relax the eligibility norms, and not on the basis of the last
admitted general category candidate. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
concluded his judgment that the matter is 'best left… to work itself
out in the next academic year'. The university, however, did not let
the matter 'work itself out'. It appealed against the Tanvi Yadav case
judgment. In an interim order passed on 3 June 2011, a division bench
of the Delhi High Court stayed the December judgment of the single
bench.
Other institutions have taken note. Former IIT Madras Director PV
Indiresan has already moved the Supreme Court for a stay on the
September 2010 judgment on Apurva's JNU-related petition. For OBCs,
there is still a long way to go.
+++
MT Hany Babu teaches English and linguistics at the University of
Delhi. These are his personal views.
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
