>> The UTAA had filed a petition before the High Court contending that the Government had miscalculated the quota and instead reserving 18 seats for scheduled tribes had only reserved 17
>> The UTAA had alleged that the Goa government failed to extend the reservation quota to those seats from the all India quota that returned to state quota because they were not filled
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
>> In his findings Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu ruled that the Rule of Reservation will apply to the reverted AIQ seats
>> For they are deemed to be the State Quota and rejected the state government’s claims that they will all go to the general category
>> However, as far as the first issue is concerned, I am unable to agree with my learned Brother's opinion. Hence, the necessity of this dissenting opinion, Justice MS Sonak said
PANAJI
The division bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa has referred to the Chief Justice of the High Court the petition filed by the United Tribals Associations Alliance (UTAA) that had challenged the Goa government’s reservation policy for seats in the Goa Medical College and Hospital.
Owing to the difference of opinion between the judges the matter is likely to be referred to a third judge to pass an order.
The UTAA had filed a petition before the High Court contending that the Government had miscalculated the quota and instead reserving 18 seats for scheduled tribes had only reserved 17. Secondly, and more importantly, the UTAA alleged that the Goa government failed to extend the reservation quota to those seats from the all India quota that returned to state quota because they were not filled.
In the admissions to the Undergraduate Medical Courses, there are two quotas: the All India Quota (AIQ) and the State Quota. Often, infact annually, the AIQ seats remain unfilled; they revert to State Quota. The UTAA argued that the reservation would extend to that quota.
While determining the percentage of seats for each caste or community, now the State has to also provide for economically weaker sections. It is 10%. How should the State reckon this 10%. While the UTAA argued that they were eligible for 12% of the total state quota seats, the state government followed a practise of first removing the 10% EWS and then calculating 12% on the remaining seats which resulted in one less seat for STs.
In his findings Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu ruled that the Rule of Reservation will apply to the reverted AIQ seats, for they are deemed to be the State Quota and rejected the state government’s claims that they will all go to the general category.
In the second instance, he agreed with the government that first, the 10% seats meant for the EWS must be separated and to the remaining pool of seats, the State should apply the caste or community-wise percentage.
However, Justice MS Sonak had a dissenting opinion.
“In so far as the second issue in relation to working out the percentage of the seats in the context of the increased seats for the EWS quota, I entirely agree with the opinion expressed by my learned Brother. However, as far as the first issue is concerned, I am unable to agree with my learned Brother's opinion. Hence, the necessity of this dissenting opinion,” he said.
“In view of the conflicting opinions, in so far as the first issue set out in paragraph 1(a) of the opinion expressed by MS Sonak, J., is concerned, we direct the Registry to place this matter before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice in order to enable him to take action,” the division bench noted.
