The Madhya Pradesh government recently announced a new reservation policy in state government jobs, intending to prioritize the employment of local residents. This move has sparked debates about the legality and feasibility of such a decision. While some argue this policy is unconstitutional and discriminatory, others argue that it can promote local employment and help reduce interstate migration.
Arguments Against the Reservation Based on Place of Birth
The Constitution of India, under Article 16, provides equality of opportunity to all citizens for ’employment or appointment’ in any state office, irrespective of their religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence and more. Advocates argue that giving preference to domicile and residence over merit creates an irrational class, depriving deserving candidates of their fundamental rights.
Moreover, this kind of parochialism may lead to regionalism, thus posing a threat to national unity.
Arguments in Favor of Reservation Based on Place of Birth
Nevertheless, proponents of the policy argue that Article 16(3) allows for government appointments based on residence. Various states have effectively used loopholes in laws to reserve jobs for locals by introducing criteria like language tests or required residency duration. Examples of such practices include Maharashtra (where fluency in Marathi and 15 years of residency are mandatory) and Jammu & Kashmir where government jobs are reserved for local residents.
Advocates argue that privileging locals in state resources allocation can encourage people to work within their home states and help reduce migration towards urban areas.
Domicile Status Versus Place of Birth
According to the Supreme Court ruling in DP Joshi vs Madhya Bharat case,1955, the concept of domicile or status of residence is fluid and may change over time, unlike one’s fixed place of birth. Domicile denotes a person’s permanent home, and it is one of the various factors that determine domicile status.
Supreme Court’s View on the Matter
The Supreme Court has made several rulings about reservation based on place of birth or residence. In 2019, the Allahabad High Court struck down a recruitment notification favoring women who were “original residents” of Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court, in the Kailash Chand Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan case, 2002, ruled that residence cannot be a basis for preferential reservation or treatment.
However, the court has also held, in DP Joshi vs Madhya Bharat case, 1955, that domicile reservation, especially in educational institutions, is constitutional.
The Way Forward
Critics argue that such reservation policies go against the spirit of the constitution that preaches equality and fraternity. It seems likely that these policies, often politically motivated, will be overturned by the judiciary, as we have observed in the past.
Furthermore, critics argue that the government should serve not as an employment-guaranteeing agency but as an authority that creates policies to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities.