Jat reservation: HC wants to know whether Jat quota is continuing in Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought the Haryana government's response about the status of reservation to Jats and four other communities given under the regime of former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda in 2013.chandigarh Updated: Jul 13, 2015 23:47 IST
The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought the Haryana government's response about the status of reservation to Jats and four other communities given under the regime of former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda in 2013.
During the hearing on Monday, the petitioner, who has challenged the government decision of giving reservation to these five communities, told the court that Supreme Court, while quashing the Jat quota (in March 2015) in central government jobs given by the United Progressive Alliance government (UPA) had also set aside the report based on which the state had given reservation to these communities in Haryana.
"The government is making recruitment on the basis of its 2013 decision and admissions in schools and other educational institutions are also admitting students accordingly. As SC has quashed the report, the reservation could not be given," the petitioners' counsel told the court further stating that even if there was a review petition pending, the reservation could not be continued as the SC had not passed any order staying its previous order.
Upon this, the high court bench of justice SK Mittal and justice HS Sidhu asked the government counsel on petitioners' averments, who told the court that he would seek instructions on the same. Following the submissions, the high court directed the government to file a reply by July 20, the next date of hearing.
The 10% reservation was given on the recommendation of Haryana Backward Classes Commission (HBCC) under special backward class (SBC) quota for Jats, Jat Sikhs, Bishnois, Rors and Tyagis. The HBCC was headed by retired Justice KC Gupta.
The petitioner has alleged that reservation to Jats was given in violation of constitutional provision and in certain categories of employees, the reservation had gone beyond 65%, which was unconstitutional. The two of the members of the HBCC committee had "interests" as their castes were under consideration, the petitioner has submitted pointing out to the inclusion of Jai Singh Bishnoi and Som Dutt, a Ror, as the committee members. Further allegations were that the commission did not do any ground work and no "thorough exercise" was carried out before the reservation was given.