Shillong, February 18 An expert committee on reservation policy for tribal communities in Meghalaya has called for the introduction of the "creamy layer" principle to ensure that its benefits reach the most disadvantaged sections within the reserved categories of people across the state.
Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma formally tabled the report, which also called for strict implementation of the reservation roster system, besides recommending that the state retain the existing 1972 policy.
"The committee has recommended that the state government examine the introduction of the creamy layer principle, where constitutionally applicable, to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the most disadvantaged sections within reserved categories," a summary of the voluminous report stated.
The panel has also "strongly emphasised" the need for strict and transparent implementation of the reservation roster system to ensure fairness, compliance, and accountability in recruitment processes.
Recognising the 1972 Resolution as "a valid and operative reservation policy", the committee recommended retaining that policy in its present form.
"It has recorded that a majority of stakeholders supported the continuation of the existing framework and that no compelling grounds presently exist for fundamental alteration," the report added.
The report of the expert committee on the state reservation policy marks the culmination of a comprehensive review process initiated through a notification issued by the Governor on September 12, 2023.
The committee had been tasked with studying the existing reservation framework, undertaking consultations with stakeholders across the state and recommending modifications, if necessary.
According to the report, extensive interactions were held with representatives of tribes and communities, civil society organisations, employee associations, student bodies and academic experts, besides examining written submissions received from various quarters.
Reaffirming established constitutional principles, the committee observed that reservation should not be determined solely on population proportions of any tribe or caste. Instead, it said, the primary considerations must remain social and educational backwardness, historical disadvantage and adequacy of representation in public services.
It also clarified that reservations cannot be based on religion, noting that the Constitution provides for affirmative action on the basis of socio-economic backwardness and under-representation rather than religious identity.
While extension of reservation to educational institutions fell outside the committee's formal mandate, the panel said the state government may independently examine the issue in accordance with constitutional provisions if it considers such a move necessary.
Highlighting regional disparities, the committee recommended targeted interventions to improve educational standards, particularly in Garo districts, to promote long-term socio-economic development and enhance competitiveness in public employment.
The panel did not recommend extending the Economically Weaker Sections benefits to SC, ST and OBC categories, observing that EWS constitutes a separate constitutional classification distinct from existing reserved groups.
The committee supported continuation of the "carry forward" provision under the 1972 resolution and suggested extending the carry forward period from one year to three years, stating that such an extension has judicial backing and could help address backlog vacancies more effectively.
Referring to recent judicial developments, it said sub-classification within reserved categories, often described as "quota within quota", may be legally permissible subject to the collection of detailed, quantifiable data, and advised the government to take a considered decision after undertaking a comprehensive data-driven exercise.
It noted that statutory safeguards already exist for persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and therefore did not propose additional measures. Similarly, it found that providing preference to residents of local districts in district-level Class C and D posts may not be administratively feasible due to migration patterns and demographic mobility.
