Hooda government's policy of providing 10% reservation under special backward class category in state government jobs and education institutions to five castes namely Jats, Jat Sikhs, Rors, Tyagis and Bishnois; and 10% to economically backward people belonging to general category, will now have to pass the judicial test in the Punjab and Haryana high court.
Taking up a public interest litigation filed by three Bhiwani residents, including Murari Lal Gupta, the division bench comprising chief justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and justice Arun Palli issued notice of motion to the state government for filing its reply by March 25.
However, a similar case "Shikha vs State of Haryana" is already pending with the high court that would come up for hearing on March 5 before the division bench headed by justice Jasbir Singh.
The petitioners informed the court on Monday that the state government had illegally granted the reservation quota in exclusion to the already notified 27% reservation to backward classes that had resulted in exceeding the ceiling limit of 50% reservation.
Also, the petitioners had sought quashing of the state government's notification dated September 23, 2013, providing reservation to economically backward people belonging to general category whose total annual income from all sources does not exceed `2.50 lakh, including agricultural income.
Through this notification, 10% reservation was provided in jobs in government departments, government undertakings and local bodies in direct recruitment to classes 3 and 4 posts, 4% to classes 1 and 2 posts and 10% in admission to government and government-aided educational institutes.
The reservation notifications were issued on the recommendations of the Haryana Backward Classes Commission chairman justice KC Gupta (retd).
Supreme Court's directions
After issuance of the notification under challenge, the reservation limit in Haryana has reached 67% which is 17% more than what the Supreme Court had decided in 1992 in "Indra Sawhney and others vs Union of India and others' case.
The Supreme Court in 'M Nagraj vs Union of India' case in 2006 had ruled, "Even if the state has compelling reasons, the state has to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50%."
Scheduled Castes: 20%
Other Backward Classes: 27%
Special Backward Classes: 10%
Economically Backward Classes in general category: 10%