MP Government Jobs: Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan recently made announcement that that the state government jobs will only be given to the "children of the state". Though the CM did not reveal the details yet, the statement spurred the debate on the Domicile-based Job Quota once again.
In his tweet, the CM Chouhan stated that the Madhya Pradesh children will have the first right over the resources and jobs of the state. The CM further stated that the aim behind this decision is to involve the locals for the upliftment of Madhya Pradesh.
मेरे प्यारे भांजे-भांजियों! आज से मध्यप्रदेश के संसाधनों पर पहला अधिकार मध्यप्रदेश के बच्चों का होगा। सभी शासकीय नौकरियाँ सिर्फ मध्यप्रदेश के बच्चों के लिए ही आरक्षित रहेंगी। हमारा लक्ष्य प्रदेश की प्रतिभाओं को प्रदेश के उत्थान में सम्मिलित करना है।#MPjobs4MPstudents pic.twitter.com/f0DEkpAvxh
— Shivraj Singh Chouhan (@ChouhanShivraj) August 18, 2020
What does India Constitution say about Domicile-based Job Quota?
Indian Constitution clearly prohibits discrimination based on place of birth:
Article 16: It guarantees equal treatment of people under the law in matters of public employment. This Article prohibits states from discriminating in matters of employment on grounds of place of birth or residence.
Article 16(2): It states that in respect of employment or office in the state, no citizen should be discriminated on the grounds of "religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them".
Exception in Article 16(3): This clause provides an exception by stating that the Parliament can form a law “prescribing” the requirement of residence for jobs in any state. However, this can only be done by Parliament, not by state legislatures.
Why does the Constitution prohibits Domicile-based reservation in Jobs?
When the Indian Constitution came into force, India was turned into a nation from individual principalities and the common citizenship was granted to all the citizens. With a single common citizenship, people are allowed to move freely in any part of the country. Thus, the necessity of place of birth or residence could not be one of the qualifications to get employment in any state.
What Supreme Court says on job reservation on basis of domicile?
The Supreme Court has time and again ruled against the job reservation on the basis of place of birth or residence. Here are the instances:
1984: In Dr Pradeep Jain v Union of India case, the apex court expressed that policy like "sons of the soil" would be unconstitutional but did not give any judgment on it.
1995: In Sunanda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh case, the Supreme Court affirmed to strike down state government policy that allowed 5% extra weightage to candidates who during their studies had Telugu as a medium of instruction.
2002: Supreme Court cancelled the appointment of teachers in Rajasthan as the selection board gave preference to candidates belonging to the district concerned.
Comments
All Comments (0)
Join the conversation