A committee, headed by Education Minister Vinod Tawde, met at Nagpur and decided to field Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to argue the case for the state government. The Tawde-led committee comprises former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar (NCP), Shiv Sena minister Eknath Shinde and Congress legislative party leader in the Assembly Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil.
A senior minister, who did not want to be named, told Business Standard, “The state government is fully supportive of the Maratha quota. The government has already taken a decision to conduct a fresh survey to ascertain the economic backwardness within the Maratha community to justify its demand for reservation. The Tawde-led committee will carry out a detailed study covering various aspects that were missing in the Narayan Rane committee report.”
Also Read
State Revenue Minister Eknath Khadse said the government would again strongly argue its case favouring reservation.
The high court on November 14 had stayed the state government’s decision, taken earlier this year, to provide 16 per cent reservation for Marathas in jobs and education institution. The court had faulted the data used by the state to support its assertion that the community is backward. The high court had also put on hold the 5 per cent quota in public jobs under a special backward class category to about 50 sub-castes among Muslims, but did not disturb a similar benefit for them in state-owned or government-aided education institutions.
The opposition Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) said the BJP-led government was against giving reservation to the Marathas. The blamed the BJP-Shiv Sena government for not being able to present its argument properly in the Supreme Court.
Former minister and senior Congress leader Harshvardhan Patil demanded that the government should table a fresh Bill providing 16 per cent reservation to the Maratha community.
NCP spokesman Nawab Mailk said the BJP, when it was in the opposition, had opposed the Congress-NCP government's decision. “After the Supreme Court's refusal to interfere with the high court order, the onus lies on the state government to table a new Bill and get it passed in the state legislature,” he said.