ATSUM rebuts Dr Yumkhaibam Rajesh's assertion on reservation imbroglio at Manipur University

ATSUM *

Rally against decision of Academic Council of Manipur University on Oct 13 2016 :: Pix - Shankar Khangembam

A rejoinder to the article published in your esteemed editorial page by Dr Yumkhaibam Rajesh on 17th October 2016 entitled "What reservation norm should be followed in Manipur University"

At the very outset we, the All Tribal Students' Union Manipur (ATSUM) would like to remind Dr Yumkhaibam Rajesh that, your article is adding more confusion to the present imbroglio in Manipur University. Your interpretation of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation) Act, 2006 Gazette notification dated 4-1-2007 and as amended in 2012 (Gazette notification dated 20-6-2012) is biased and misleading even though you said that your intention was without any bias, truly and sincerely based on the natural, rational and simple interpretation of the CEI Act, 2006 as amended in 2012.

It may be pertinent to note for your kind information that the said CEI Act, 2006 and as amended in 2012 has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Manipur High Court in its judgment under PIL No. 18 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Chief Justice LK Mohapatra, Hon'ble Justice N Koteswar Singh order Dated 3-9-2014. Since then Manipur University has been following the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 and as amended in 2012 during the Academic session of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.

The percentage of reservation in Manipur University in Admission to various P/G courses and Ph D (admission) registration is 31% for ST, 21% for SC and 17% for OBC. This above percentage of reservation in admission has become an integral part of the principal Act, 2006 after the CEI amended Act, 2012.

Your interpretation "In the case of Manipur University Immediately before the amended provisions come into effect ie- 19th June immediately preceding of the date of commencement of the CEI Act, 2012) is misleading and wrong because we cannot separate the CEI amendment Act, 2012 from the principal CEI Act, 2006. When you separate between the principal Act 2006, and as amended in 2012 as different entity, then what is the logic behind the amendment Act, 2012 and to which principal Act you are referring?

Therefore, the reservation norms followed in Manipur University immediately before the commencement of the principal Act, 2006 was 31% for ST, 2% for SC and 17% for OBC.

You also stated that the second proviso is not attracted in the case of Manipur University. However, in contrast to your interpretation of the second proviso of the said Act, the Hon'ble Manipur High Court's ruling was based on the second-section-3 of the principal Act as has been amended and the following has been provided in the amendment Act:- "………………….. is situated;

Provided further that if there are no State seats in a Central Educational Institution and the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes Exceed the percentage specified under clause (i) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes exceed the percentage specified under clause (ii) or the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes taken together exceed the sum of percentages specified under clauses (i) and (ii), but such seats are-

(a) Less than fifty percent. Of the annual permitted strength on the date immediately preceding the day of commencement of this Act, the total percentages of the seats required to be reserved for the other Backward Classes under clauses (iii) shall be restricted to the extent such sum of percentages specified under clauses (i) and (ii) falls short of fifty percent of the annual permitted strength;

(b) More than fifty percent of the annual permitted strength on the date of commencement of this Act, in that case no seat shall be reserved for the Other Backward Cla sses under clause (iii) but the extent of the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall not be reduced in respect of Central Educational Institutions in the specified north-eastern region".

Again the Hon'ble Manipur High Court in its order dated 3-10-2016 ie (M.C (W.P(C))No.529 of 2016 with WP(C) No.632 of 2016 with MC(WP(C))No.231 of 2016) mentioned that "there has been no order relating to stay of the operation of the order passed by this court" ie order of 3-9-2014. The Manipur High Court order further made it clear that "this court is not going into the merit of the case whatsoever as the matter relating to reservation has already been decided by one of the benches of this court and that is subject to appeal.

Under this situation and circumstances, may we remind you that no matter how learned you may be, you are not above the Rule of Law and your interpretation of the said Act is misleading and without any basis of the Rule of Law. Your interpretation on "what reservation norm should be followed in Manipur University" is nothing but just endorsing the Manipur University Academic Council Resolution taken on 8th October 2016, which has decided to follow the reservation norm stipulated in the CEI Act, 2006 without taking into account of the CEI Amendment Act, 2012 is not only illegal but against the rule of Law and parliament Act.

It is worth mentioning here that the present imbroglio is the creation of Manipur University Authority. The MU authority knowing on the operational of the Hon'ble High Court interpretation of the CEI Act, 2006 as amended in 2012 took a hasty decision on 4th April 2016 to reverse back the reservation norm of CEI Act, 2006 despite the existing amendment Act 2012 justifying that they are following the UGC direction as stated on 23rd March 2016.

Later the UGC made clarification of the 3rd June 2016 circulation stating that the 23rd march 2016 was a general letter to all 40 Central Universities in India and MU authority should follow CEI (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act, 2012. This was further reiterated by UGC/HRD Official to the Manipur University team of three Professors including registrar in-charge in Delhi on 12th September 2016. It may also be noted that, MU Academic council failure to follow the Hon'ble High Court order has resulted in the contempt court noticed served on 26th August 2016 to the Academic council members.

Moreover, the MU authority came out with a press release dated; 20-9-2016 saying that the University was following the Central Government policy CEI (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Act 2012 during 2014-2015 and during 2015-2016 and so also for the current Academic session as the UGC has instructed the University to follow CEI (Reservation in admission) Amendment Act, 2012. But in contrast to this press release, the MU authority took a decision on 8th October 2016 to implement the reservation norm as per the CEI, Act 2006, just opposite to the said press release.

It is very unfortunate that such mindset of saying one thing and doing just the opposite is prevailing in Manipur University, the highest seat of learning in the State. To our mind reason, rationality and natural justice has no place in Manipur University because MU authority and academic Council members seems to be succumbing to some Professors who are hell bend upon taking Law into their own hands.

The silence of the majority teachers in the academic council meetings and not standing up for rule of Law will have huge ramification in the Manipur University campus disturbing the conducive academic environment in the coming years.

ATSUM will always stand for justice and fight for the rights of the tribal and students' welfare in particular.