E-Paper
SC indicates reluctance to entertain Haryana’s appeal against HC verdict on domicile-based job quota
Supreme Court expresses negative view on Haryana's appeal over domicile-based marks policy, high court decision quashing it, listing matter for June 24.
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed a prima facie negative view over the Haryana government’s appeal against a Punjab & Haryana high court decision to quash the state’s policy of granting additional marks to residents in recruitment exams.
A vacation bench led by justice Vikram Nath, responding to the state’s request for a short adjournment to list similar petitions together, remarked: “You want an adjournment because you know we were going to dismiss it.” The bench added that the state would perhaps want the matter to come up before a different bench in July when the top court reopens following the summer break.
The counsel, representing the Haryana government, responded that there is an urgency in the matter since the results of the examination in question were yet to be published. He added that the state seeks two other petitions arising out of the same judgment of the high court to be listed together.
At this, the bench, also comprising justice SVN Bhatti, agreed to list the matter on June 24.
The appeal, filed jointly by the state government and Haryana Staff Selection Commission, stems from the high court’s landmark judgment on May 31 striking down the Haryana government’s policy of providing additional marks under socioeconomic criteria to state residents for Group C and Group D posts. The high court ruling emphasised that no state can restrict employment to its residents alone, as such policies create artificial classifications and discriminate against similarly placed individuals.
“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,” noted the high court bench of justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sudeepti Sharma.
Implemented on May 5, 2022, the policy affected 401 categories of jobs across 63 groups for which the Common Eligibility Test (CET) was held. The high court’s decision invalidated the CET results declared on January 10, 2023, and the subsequent results of July 25, 2023. Thousands of applicants, who benefitted from the domicile-based marks are impacted by this ruling.
The high court directed that fresh advertisements be issued and a new merit list be prepared based solely on the CET exam. “Those candidates, who have been appointed based on the earlier result, shall be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process,” the court stated. “They would be allowed to continue on the posts till fresh selections are not made and if their names do not figure in the merit list, their services ought to be terminated,” it added.
The judgment criticised the state’s execution of the selection process, describing it as done in a “wholly slipshod manner”, and highlighted the need for transparency. The high court directed the commission to frame rules to ensure a fair process, to be completed within six months.
“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,” the judgment held, noting the policy lacked a data-backed foundation and did not adhere to established socioeconomic criteria.
Reinforcing that the law, as settled by the Supreme Court, does not permit weightage based on residence, the high court stated, adding: “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.”
The high court, while concluding that Articles 15 and 16 and should be limited to the specific requirements for reserved categories, asserted: “No state can restrict employment to its residents alone by allowing the benefit of 5% weightage in marks. The respondents have created an artificial classification to the similarly situated candidates applying for the posts.”
The Supreme Court’s proceedings on June 24 will be closely watched, as they could have significant implications for domicile-based reservation policies in employment across the country.
