The Math of Reservation in Central Universities
A math trick that help central universities evade 50% reservation
Let us assume that the university has 20 departments, each with five faculties, as shown in the graphic enclosed.
Now if you take the university as a unit, we have 50% of 100 faculties, that is 50 faculties for SC/ST/OBCs.
If you consider that each department has a unit, then we have five faculties in each department. 50% of 5 faculties = 2.5 faculties, which is taken as 2 faculties for the roster.
So we have 2 x 20 = 40 faculties for SC/ST/OBCs if the 50% rule is applied at department level.
So by just changing the unit to university or department, a 10% gain is achieved. But it does not stop here
The 13-Point Roster and its consequences on Reservations
Central universities follow a 13-point roster.
In government, there is a 13-point roster and a 200-point roster.
A 13-point roster is applied to units with fewer than 14 employees, while for units with more than 14 employees, a 200-point roster is applied.
Let’s see what happens in the 13 -point roster, which is enclosed in the above picture.
Every 4th, 7th, 8th, 12th, and 14th vacancy is reserved for OBCs, SCs, OBCs, OBCs, and STs, respectively, in the 13-point roster.
Let us take the full cycle until 14 positions are filled.
Then, too, only five positions would be filled.
For every 14 vacancies, only 5 seats are filled by SC/ST/OBCs. So effective reservation rate is 35.71% So directly, by using a 13-point roster, the 50% reservation mandate was brought down to 35%.
Please note the sequence, the first three are general seats.
Now, if you make a smaller department with fewer than five professors, it would take a very, very long time before a reserved vacancy arises.
EWS has created another problem here. Now every 10th vacancy has to be filled by EWS. Out of 14 guys, only 6 reserved guys would be filled, resulting in a 42.81% reservation rate. When the asking rate is 60%.
As a result, the trick of a 13-point roster is used to thwart a 50% reservation.
50% reservation at central universities is a myth. Just 25% to 30% is what is achieved. What is the solution?
The Best Solution for tackling Reservation Crisis at Central Universities !!!
A position on the roster for any reserved group is reached by dividing 100 by the percentage of the quota that the group is entitled to.
For example, the OBC quota is 27%; therefore, they get 100/27 = 3.7, that is, every 4th post for which a vacancy arises.
SCs, likewise, get every 100/15 = 6.66, that is, every 7th post, and STs get every 100/7.5 = 13.33, that is, every 14th vacancy.
For EWS, it is 100/10, meaning the 10th Position is taken
But this leads to sub optimal reservation for SC/ST/OBC resulting in just 25%-35% reservation max.
Instead of individual quota, take 50% as aggregate quota for SC/ST/OBC and then divide, that will be 100/50 = 2.
So every second Vacancy will go to SC/ST/OBC.
After this, the reservation % of OBC =27%, SC=15% and ST=7.5% can be maintained to get the reservation % of 50%
Is there another solution. What about the 200 point roster?
The 200 point roster and its impact on reservation — The reasons why this is not implemented.
200 point system ensures that SC, ST, OBC and EWS categories get a near perfect distribution of 15%, 7.5%, 27% and 10% of the available seats.
Out of 200 seats, each category gets the following number of seats: 30 (SC), 15 (ST), 54 (OBC) and 20 (EWS)
Also see the graphic enclosed for BHU where reservation under 200 point and 13 point is shown.
Clearly 200 point system is beneficial since more reserved vacancies would be created.
In 2017, the Allahabad High Court in Vivekanand Tiwari v. Union of India held that each department has to be treated as a unit for the purpose of the 50% rule.
As a result of this, the University Grants Commission imposed the 13-point roster instead of the 200-point roster for recruitment at central government universities.
However, the government issued an ordinance and later a statute saying that 200 point roster should be done.
But this is pending in the Supreme Court for adjudication. So the earlier system continues, and the dismal representation for SC, ST, and OBCs continues.
