Editor,

I wish to draw the attention of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the AAPSU, all tribal community-based organisations (CBOs), student leaders, and other stakeholders who are presently discussing the proposal to scrap the existing 80:20 recruitment ratio in government jobs.

If the decision is taken to abolish the 80:20 ratio, I humbly appeal that it should be replaced with 100% reservation for APST candidates in Group A and Group B services, particularly in recruitments conducted through the APPSC. The possession of a valid APST certificate and permanent resident certificate (PRC) should be made mandatory at the time of application.

There should be no provision whatsoever for eligibility on the basis of a temporary resident certificate (TRC) or any other similar category. Eligibility for these posts should be determined solely by the possession of a valid APST certificate and PRC. Likewise, no exemption should be granted to non-APST candidates merely because their parents are serving or have served in the Government of Arunachal, or because they have resided in the state for a specified number of years.

There have been suggestions that non-APST candidates whose parents are government employees in Arunachal, or who have resided in the state for a specified number of years, may be allowed to compete in Group A and Group B recruitments. While such proposals may appear reasonable at first glance, they could have serious long-term consequences.

Let us consider a hypothetical example. Suppose Mr A, a non-APST individual originally from Bihar, is the son of a government employee serving as a lower division clerk (LDC) in the Police Department under the Government of Arunachal. Under the proposed exemption, Mr A becomes eligible to appear in the APPSC examination despite not being an APST candidate. He successfully clears the examination and is appointed to a Group A or Group B post.

Several years later, Mr A’s son, Mr B, also becomes eligible to appear in the same examination because his father is now a Government of Arunachal officer. If Mr B also secures a government job, the same privilege would again extend to his children in the future. In this manner, what was initially introduced as a one-time exemption gradually becomes a hereditary advantage enjoyed by the same family across generations.

On the other hand, another non-APST individual from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, or any other state, whose parents are not employed under the Government of Arunachal, would remain ineligible to apply.

Consequently, only a small section of non-APST families already serving in the state government would continue to enjoy repeated access to Arunachal government jobs, while all other non-APST citizens remain excluded.

Such a system could unintentionally create a monopoly for a limited number of non-APST families in state government employment. Over time, this loophole could encourage more non-APST families to seek government employment in Arunachal, knowing that their future generations would continue to benefit from the same eligibility. This would gradually establish an unofficial, perpetual advantage for a select group of families and defeat the very objective of safeguarding employment opportunities for the indigenous tribal population.

It is also worth noting that the state already has a significant number of non-APST officers serving through the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and other All India Services. Therefore, there is no compelling necessity to create an additional avenue for regular induction of non-APST officers into the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service (APCS) or other State Group A and Group B services. The priority of these state services should remain the welfare, representation, and employment security of the indigenous tribal population of Arunachal.

Therefore, if the 80:20 ratio is abolished, I earnestly request the government of Arunachal, the AAPSU, and all tribal CBOs to ensure that all Group A and Group B posts are reserved exclusively for APST candidates, with APST certificate and PRC as the only valid eligibility documents. No TRC-based eligibility, residential exemption, or parental government service exemption should be permitted under any circumstances.

As far as teaching posts and Group C and Group D services are concerned, the stakeholders may deliberate separately on whether a 90:10 ratio, a 95:5 ratio, or complete reservation would best serve the interests of the state. However, for higher administrative and policy-making positions falling under Group A and Group B, the reservation should remain exclusively for APST candidates, so that the objectives of constitutional protection and indigenous representation are fully achieved.

This appeal is made in the interest of safeguarding the future of indigenous employment and ensuring that any reform in the recruitment policy does not inadvertently create a permanent advantage for a limited class of non-APST families over generations. I sincerely hope that all stakeholders will consider the long-term implications before arriving at a decision that will shape the future of Arunachal.

An APST