KHNAM suggests allotment of 50% job reservation for Khasi-Jaintia 

SHILLONG, JUNE 13: Allotment of 50% job reservation for the Khasi and Jaintia communities is one of the suggestions submitted by the Khun Hynniewtrep National Awakening Movement (KHNAM) to the Expert Committee on State Reservation Policy on Thursday.

In a letter to the commission, KHNAM president Pyndapborlang Saibon also suggested the need for a combined reservation of 80% be made available to all three communities – Khasi, Jainta & Garo on the basis of merit.

Saibon said that as per Para 1 of the Policy, the reservation is to be based on the population of the indigenous communities in the state, therefore the reservation should be worked based on the population structure of the Khasi-Jaintia and Garo communities respectively.

“It is to state that as per the census of 2011, the Khasi & Jaintia communities have an excess population of 5, 78, 918 to those of the Garo community and this difference is projected to rise to 9,49,756 after the completion of the next census.  Therefore, the projected difference in population needs to be taken into consideration while working out the percentage of reservation.

Or, to avoid confrontation between the indigenous tribed of the State, a combine’s reservation of 80% be made available to all three communities (Khasi, Jaintia & Garo), which should be considered on the basis of merit. This will uphold provision of ‘Maintenance of Efficiency in the Administration’ as provided in Para 1 of the Policy.

Or 50% be allotted to the Khasi and Jaintia Communities,” he stated in the letter.

The KHNAM also suggested the need to delete the word “Autonomous State” from Para 1 of the State Reservation Policy 1972, since Meghalaya has been declared a full-fledged state of Meghalaya on January 2, 1972.

It also stated that the need to amend Para 2 of the Policy by deleting the provision of carrying forward of vacancies. It is to be noted that carrying forward of vacancies is against the core objective of the policy in maintaining the Administrative Duties as mentioned in Para 1 of the Policy. Therefore, after the sentence ‘Then such vacancies will be available to other’, the rest of the Para 2 of the resolution needs to be deleted in toto.

The party said that the OM dated May 28, 1974 provided that the candidates from outside the state can also avail the vacancies reserved for Garos. Such provision should not be allowed at any stage so as to ensure that citizens of the state are benefited from the policy.

It said that the OM dated December 18, 1972 provides for reservation to the District level post at the district level, where the incumbents are not likely to be transferred outside the district of original posting, there will be a combined reservation of 80% of the posts in favour of Garos, Khasi-Jaintia instead of a separate reservation of 40% each for Garo and Khasi-Jaintia.

“The same needs to be amended to clearly indicate that in ‘district level post where the incumbents are not likely to be transferred outside the district of original posting, 80% reservation is to be made in favour of Khasi-Jaintia in Khasi and Jaintia Hills District and 80% reservation is to be made in favour of Garo in Garo Hills District,” it said

According to the party, presently, the district level posts in Garo Hills are being filled only by the Garo community whereas in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills Districts Garo community are also being absorbed along with the Khasi-Jaintia community.

The party said that the implementation of the SRP 1972 be extended to the semi-government department/corporations/organized private sectors/private establishment so that more employment opportunities are made available to the local youth of the state.

Further, the party also asserted the need to ensure that the policy is meant for job reservation only and not for other purposes.

“For the past many years, the State Reservation Policy 1972 has been implemented in the academic seat allocation for higher studies also, without proper authorization. Therefore, it is suggested that an amendment be incorporated so as to clearly indicate that the State Reservation Policy 1972 is meant only for job reservation and not for any other purpose,” it said.

“We would like to further state that, due to the difference of opinion on the amendment of the SRP 1972 from some communities, it might be possible that delay tactics might be used by these communities. Therefore, it is suggested that the matter be completed at the shortest time possible,” it added.