E-Paper
No state can restrict employment to its residents: Punjab and Haryana HC
In 63 groups 401 categories of jobs were classified for which CET was held. Thousands had applied and appeared of posts with also provision of additional five marks under socio economic criteria to those with state’s domicile.
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has ruled that no state can restrict employment to its residents.
“While principally we agree that the state has to follow the provisions which are for the welfare of the people, but they cannot create an artificial classification which results in discrimination between similarly placed persons. All candidates who apply for the post are equally entitled to selection based on the common examination conducted for all,” the bench of justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and justice Sudeepti Sharma observed while quashing the May 5, 2022, policy for recruitment of Group C and Group D posts in Haryana, which provided for additional five percent marks under socioeconomic criteria to the domicile of the state.
In 63 groups 401 categories of jobs were classified for which CET was held. Thousands had applied and appeared of posts with also provision of additional five marks under socio economic criteria to those with state’s domicile. The judgment came on May 31 and released on Monday.
The court has now quashed the CET result declared on January 10, 2023, and the subsequent result of July 25, 2023. The court has now ordered that fresh advertisements be issued and merit be prepared based on the CET exam alone.
“Those candidates, who have been appointed based on the earlier result, shall be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process,” the court said, adding that they would be allowed to continue on the posts till fresh selections are not made and if their names do not figure in merit list their services ought to be terminated.
The court further directed that to maintain transparency in the future, the commission would frame rules and not leave any discretion to its members or officials. The exercise is to be completed within six months.
‘Entire selection in a wholly slipshod manner’
The court observed that the state had conducted the entire selection in “a wholly slipshod manner”.
“The notification of granting the bonus marks of 5% for socioeconomic criteria and experience is not based on any rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India,” it said adding that no data was collected before laying down such socioeconomic criteria.
The bench asserted that the law has been well settled by the Supreme Court that weightage based on residence cannot be allowed to be granted. “The right to equality, enshrined in the Constitution, had been violated and a class created based on the family background simpliciter, which does not have any intangible differentia,” it recorded.
The court further underlined that reservations are required to be adopted by the state government concerned in terms of Articles 15 and 16 limited to the extent of the requirements for a particular reserved category available in the said state.
“..(from the conditions laid down for the criteria) we find that same does not have any nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved. No state can restrict employment to its residents alone by allowing the benefit of 5 percent weightage in marks the respondents have created an artificial classification to the similarly situated candidates applying for the posts,” it said.
