Jaipur:
The Rajasthan High Court has issued notices to the state government and others in connection with a petition seeking 9 per cent special reservation for the Bhil community out of the existing 12 per cent reservation for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. The petitioners have also sought a stay on appointments under the ST category until the petition is decided.
While hearing the petition filed by Shankar Lal Dahiya and others, a division bench of Justices Inderjeet Singh and Sandeep Taneja issued notices to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Personnel), National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and the Central Government.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Manoj Chaudhary told the court that the petitioners are associated with the Adivasi Bhil Reservation Struggle Committee.
The petition claims that adequate data on social, economic and educational backwardness of different communities included in the ST category is not collected while determining reservation benefits.
The petitioners claimed that the Meena community has received a major share of the benefits of ST reservation, but the Bhil community has not received adequate representation.
They have sought sub-classification within the ST quota, with 9 per cent of the 12 per cent ST reservation earmarked for the Bhil community.
According to the petition, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had written to the state’s Chief Secretary on February 25, under Article 338A of the Constitution, calling for sub-classification within the ST category and implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh.
The petitioners contend that no such sub-classification has been carried out in the state so far.
The petition also claims that there has been no comprehensive survey of the Bhil community’s representation in state government services or its educational and economic status for a long period.
Issues concerning the community’s socio-economic condition and access to government welfare schemes were also placed before the court.
The division bench has sought responses from the concerned parties.
