Representative Image

BENGALURU: The Siddaramaiah government’s bid to whip up pro-Kannada sentiments by ensuring 100% reservation to Kannadigas in private sector jobs has hit a roadblock. The proposal, the advocate general has opined, “may not stand the test of judicial review nor would it be fair and reasonable”.

In his report dated January 30, advocate general (AG) Madhusudan R Naik said the government could suggest to the private sector to give “preference” to Kannadigas during recruitment but could not force it to fall in line. A copy of the AG ’s report, accessed by TOI, categorically statesthat “any compulsion to employ Kannadigas in private business or industrial establishments (not receiving state largesse) would be violating the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India”.

The state government is now likely to go slow on the issue to avoid legal wrangles.

The Siddaramaiah government had pushed the job quota – a long-pending demand of pro-Kannada activists – in the run-up to the assembly polls after the Kannada Development Authority sought an amendment to Rule 2A of the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1961. Labour minister Santosh Lad declared that the state was looking at 100% reservation even as the law department pointed to a few grey areas.

Questions were raised on who would be defined as a Kannadiga, whether place of birth and domicile and educational qualification would be parameters and if there were ways to rein in the private sector. The matter was then referred to the AG for his opinion.

The AG’s report defined a Kannadiga in this context as “any person who has studied up to tenth standard as one of the subjects and is able to read, write and speak Kannada”. It does not specify that a person should have been born in Karnataka to be called a Kannadiga – such a clause would amount to discrimination against job aspirants on the basis of their origin.

The AG suggested “preferential employment opportunities” for Kannadigas in private establishments that receive statelargesse(such as land and tax benefits), provided that a separate group with specific identifiable characteristicstermed ‘Kannadigas’ is carved out.

“It is important to note that legislation or rules can only prescribe the right to be considered for employment and not guarantee that a Kannadiga will be employed even if otherwise found unsuitable,” the AG explained. “Any amendment to the existing statute cannot compel employment to be offered if a person is otherwise found unsuitable.”

