House panel on OBCs likely to push for ‘equality of messages’ – Times of India

NEW DELHI: As a key parliamentary panel prepares to push the Center to correct the “flawed” implementation of “creamy layer” for OBCs in certain categories, emphasis will be on prolonged absence from “equality of messages‘, which is at the root of the controversy.
Sources said the panel was on OBC prosperity is likely to push the government to ensure ‘equality’ within its institutions. “Equivalence of posts” refers to categorizing posts in PSUs, banks, universities, etc., as Group A, B, C, D, as in government.
The BJP government had announced in 2017 with much fanfare that ‘equivalence’ will be instituted between departments and bodies of the government, ahead of 1993. But it is clear that there is no news of ‘equivalence’ being adopted by most agencies is done, barring eternal disagreements. on equivalence letters from states.
Although the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) and the Department of Financial Services (DFS) came out with ‘equivalence’ for central PSUs and banks in 2017, the classification has been mired in controversies.
Now it turns out that the parliamentary committeehad, in a special report on “rationalization of the creamy layer in the use of OBCs”, filed in March 2019, questioned the “equivalence” of the two main departments.
“The committee(members) have felt the resonance of dissatisfaction experienced due to the ‘equality’ achieved by both DPE and DFS. Public opinion is largely against it. They therefore recommend that equivalence determination by DFS and DPE should be revised in accordance with the letter and spirit of the report of the Expert Committee and the DoPT OM of 1993,” the report said. However, the government later defended this in the action report (ATR) to the committee.
The government includes “salary” in calculating the “income” of candidates from PSU background, which is contrary to DoPT’s OM of 1993 which stipulates that “income” does not include “salary” and “agricultural income”. The panel wishes to reiterate that the formula for calculating ‘income’ for ‘creamy layer’ cannot be changed for any category. The panel is also considering a ‘model form’ at the national level for determining ‘income’ so that errors and subjectivity of implementation can be eradicated.
In its 2019 report, the panel had termed the practice as discriminatory, even citing the judgments of the Madras and Delhi HCs, which had condemned Center on the issue.