The Supreme Court gave its verdict in the caste reservation case

The Supreme Court gave its verdict on Friday (December 18) in the caste reservation case. During this time, the Supreme Court said that quota policy does not mean denial of merit. The objective is not to deprive the meritorious candidates of job opportunities, even if they belong to the reserved category.

The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Uday Lalit gave its verdict on the petition filed for the benefit of reservation. The court said in its judgment that to fill the post, applicants should focus on their merit rather than caste and help the meritorious candidates. Also, the selection of applicants in any competition must be based solely on merit.

Reservation is the way to ensure representation in public services both vertically and horizontally. Reservation should not be seen as an opportunity for general category qualified candidates. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of a separate bench of the Supreme Court wrote this as a comment in the judgment.

The Supreme Court gave its verdict in the caste reservation case
The Supreme Court gave its verdict in the caste reservation case


Justice Bhat wrote that doing so would result in caste reservation, where each social category would be limited in its scope of reservation and merit would be denied. There should be open category for all. There should be only one condition that the applicant gets a chance to show his / her qualification, irrespective of the benefit of reservation of any kind.

It is worth noting that many high courts have considered in their decisions that if a candidate belonging to reserved category can apply in general category also. Whether it is of scheduled class, scheduled tribe or other backward class. In such a situation, he can leave the reserved seat for another candidate. However, seats reserved for special sections such as families of freedom fighters, ex-servicemen or SC / ST / OBC candidates remain vacant. They are not given a chance to applicants from the general category. This principle and interpretation of the rule was rejected by the apex court on Friday.