MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court Tuesday concluded the listening to on a host of petitions filed both in opposition and toughen of the Maharashtra executive's choice to grant 16 per cent reservation for the Maratha network in jobs and training in the state.
A bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, which heard the petitions, reserved its verdict on the issue.
The bench have been engaging in day by day hearings on the petitions since February 6.
On November 30, 2018, the Maharashtra legislature handed a invoice giving 16 per cent quota to the Marathas in executive jobs and academic institutes following an intense agitation by means of the network.
The reservation was once granted by means of placing the Marathas below a newly carved 'Socially and Educationally Backward Class.'
With the Maratha quota, the full reservation in jobs and training in Maharashtra below various heads stands at 68 per cent, manner above the Supreme Court-fixed limit.
The executive maintained ahead of the HC that the Maratha quota and advent of the new category was once criminal and legitimate.
The state was once represented during the hearings by means of former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, former Advocate General V A Thorat and senior counsel Anil Sakhare.
All the legal professionals for the state maintained the Maratha quota was once vital, and the measure was once in response to the recommendations of the Justice M B Gaikwad Backward Class Commission.
The commission, they stated, had beneficial reservations for the Marathas who comprise a 3rd of the state's population, for training and public employment.
Therefore, even supposing the new category took reservations in the state past 50 per cent, the same was once authorised below the powers vested to the state by means of the Constitution for betterment of the downtrodden, they argued.
While those arguments had been supported by means of a host of petitions, others, represented by means of former Advocate General Shrihari Aney and suggest Pradeep Sancheti, amongst others, antagonistic the quota.
These petitioners argued that the commission record was once in response to "unsound" findings. They additionally argued the Marathas were not socially backward.
They argued that the Marathas traditionally belonged to the warrior magnificence and most of them presently held executive jobs or had been employed in the Army.
They additionally argued the Maratha quota was once in breach of a prior apex court judgement that prescribed an upper limit of 50 per cent for caste and community-based quota.
A bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharati Dangre, which heard the petitions, reserved its verdict on the issue.
The bench have been engaging in day by day hearings on the petitions since February 6.
On November 30, 2018, the Maharashtra legislature handed a invoice giving 16 per cent quota to the Marathas in executive jobs and academic institutes following an intense agitation by means of the network.
The reservation was once granted by means of placing the Marathas below a newly carved 'Socially and Educationally Backward Class.'
With the Maratha quota, the full reservation in jobs and training in Maharashtra below various heads stands at 68 per cent, manner above the Supreme Court-fixed limit.
The executive maintained ahead of the HC that the Maratha quota and advent of the new category was once criminal and legitimate.
The state was once represented during the hearings by means of former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, former Advocate General V A Thorat and senior counsel Anil Sakhare.
All the legal professionals for the state maintained the Maratha quota was once vital, and the measure was once in response to the recommendations of the Justice M B Gaikwad Backward Class Commission.
The commission, they stated, had beneficial reservations for the Marathas who comprise a 3rd of the state's population, for training and public employment.
Therefore, even supposing the new category took reservations in the state past 50 per cent, the same was once authorised below the powers vested to the state by means of the Constitution for betterment of the downtrodden, they argued.
While those arguments had been supported by means of a host of petitions, others, represented by means of former Advocate General Shrihari Aney and suggest Pradeep Sancheti, amongst others, antagonistic the quota.
These petitioners argued that the commission record was once in response to "unsound" findings. They additionally argued the Marathas were not socially backward.
They argued that the Marathas traditionally belonged to the warrior magnificence and most of them presently held executive jobs or had been employed in the Army.
They additionally argued the Maratha quota was once in breach of a prior apex court judgement that prescribed an upper limit of 50 per cent for caste and community-based quota.
HC concludes hearing on Maratha quota petitions
![HC concludes hearing on Maratha quota petitions]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
March 26, 2019
Rating:
