Shillong, February 25: The Meghalaya government on Wednesday tabled the report of the Expert Committee on the State Reservation Policy in the Assembly, recommending that the 1972 reservation framework be retained in its present form.
 |
| Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma addresses the Assembly during the discussion on the state’s 1972 reservation policy in Shillong. (Image: X@megassemblychannel) |
Replying to a short duration discussion, Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma placed on record the background, findings and recommendations of the committee constituted on September 12, 2023 to review the implementation of the reservation roster system and examine whether modifications were required in the state’s long-standing policy.
The existing reservation structure in Meghalaya, based on the Resolution dated January 12, 1972, provides 85 per cent reservation for Scheduled Tribes, 5 per cent for Scheduled Castes and 10 per cent for the open category in public services. Within the 85 per cent ST quota, 40 per cent is allocated to the Khasi and Jaintia communities, 40 per cent to the Garo community and 5 per cent to other Scheduled Tribes. For certain district-level non-transferable posts, a combined 80 per cent reservation operates in favour of Khasi, Jaintia and Garo communities, along with 5 per cent for SCs and other STs, with preference to local residents.
The Expert Committee, headed by a retired High Court judge and comprising experts in law, sociology, economics and demography, submitted its report on June 6, 2025. The report, spanning 21 volumes and over 4,600 pages, examined historical records, judicial precedents, stakeholder representations and constitutional provisions.
On the question of whether reservation should be proportionate to population, the committee held that population can be a factor but cannot be the sole criterion. It reiterated that the core objective of reservation is to address historical exploitation, socio-economic backwardness and inadequate representation. It cautioned that altering the present system could expose it to judicial review, particularly in light of Supreme Court judgments capping reservation at 50 per cent, while also noting that tribal states such as Meghalaya have been given certain exceptions.
Regarding demands for religion-based reservation, the committee concluded that reservation cannot be granted solely on religious grounds, as the Constitution provides for affirmative action based on backwardness and not religious identity. On extending reservation to educational institutions, it stated that this falls outside its mandate, which was confined to public services.
On improving educational standards in certain districts, especially in Garo Hills, the committee acknowledged the concern but clarified that it was beyond its terms of reference, though it suggested the government may independently examine the issue. On the proposal to extend benefits to economically weaker sections within existing reserved categories, the committee noted that the EWS category created under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment is separate from SC, ST and OBC reservations and should not be merged with them.
With respect to the carry-forward rule for unfilled vacancies, the panel supported continuation of the existing system under the 1972 policy, in line with constitutional provisions. On the question of introducing a “quota within a quota” as permitted by recent Supreme Court judgments, the committee said such a step would require detailed socio-economic data and careful consideration by the state.
On the creamy layer principle, the committee observed that while the concept aligns with judicial pronouncements, its implementation in a predominantly tribal state like Meghalaya would require in-depth study before any decision is taken. Concerning reservation for persons with disabilities, it noted that horizontal reservations already exist under applicable laws and no additional recommendation was necessary.
ALSO READ: Meghalaya Reports 749 HIV/AIDS Deaths in a Decade; Highest HIV Cases in India
The panel also examined whether local residents should be given preference in district-specific jobs and concluded that existing office memorandums already address this concern. On whether the 1972 resolution constitutes a valid reservation policy, the committee held that executive resolutions are legally permissible and that the policy has remained in force for over five decades.
On the strict implementation of the roster system, it recommended transparency, digitisation and adherence to vacancy-based calculations to avoid inter-tribal imbalance. It further suggested streamlining the recruitment process through timely vacancy identification, advertisement and completion of recruitment within a defined timeframe.
Finally, on whether the 1972 reservation policy requires change, the committee found that the majority of stakeholders supported retaining the status quo and that there was no compelling reason to alter the existing framework at this stage. It warned that major modifications could make the policy vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.
The Chief Minister said the government remains open to consultations with legislators and stakeholders before formally adopting the recommendations. Emphasizing unity among communities, he added that while reservation remains a sensitive issue, long-term solutions to unemployment must also include economic growth, private sector expansion and job creation beyond government employment.
