On Friday(31st May),The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled the Haryana government’s socioeconomic criteria for awarding extra marks in state jobs as unconstitutional. The decision follows petitions, including one led by Aprit Gahlawat, questioning the fairness and legality of the criteria.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: Today(on 1st June), The Haryana government has announced its intention to challenge the recent decision of the High Court, which quashed its policy of granting additional marks under the socioeconomic criteria to candidates applying for government jobs. The Chief Minister, Nayab Singh Saini, made this announcement on Saturday, asserting that the state will file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s ruling.
Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini took to social media platform X on today(1st June) to express his views on the matter.
In a heartfelt post in Hindi, he stated-
“An ambitious scheme aimed at providing five additional marks to candidates from economically disadvantaged backgrounds to uplift them was initiated by the Haryana government. However, the High Court has ruled against it,”
On Friday(31st May), The Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the socioeconomic criteria prescribed by the Haryana government for granting additional marks to certain classes of candidates in state government jobs as unconstitutional. This decision comes after a series of petitions, notably led by Aprit Gahlawat, challenging the fairness and legality of the criteria.
The division bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Sudeepti Sharma, quashed the socioeconomic criteria, citing its violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India. The judgment emphasized that the criteria failed to uphold the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
“The division bench declared on Friday that the socioeconomic criteria are unconstitutional and contravene Articles 14, 15, and 16.”
– said Sarthak Gupta, counsel for one of the petitioners.
He elaborated on the policy, stating-
“The Haryana government had a policy for government recruitments for Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ category jobs, wherein they provided additional marks or weightage. This ranged from five marks in some recruitments to twenty in others. However, this policy has now been deemed unconstitutional.”
The case centered around the Haryana government’s policy that allocated additional marks for candidates based on socioeconomic criteria and experience. Specifically, the criteria accounted for 20 marks out of 100 in the selection process for Group D jobs, which heavily influenced candidates’ success based on their socioeconomic background or domicile status.
Among the petitioners, Aprit Gahlawat, a Group D candidate, highlighted the inherent bias in the selection process. He argued that the criteria favored candidates based on descent or domicile of Haryana, thus undermining the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. The court agreed, finding that such criteria unfairly disadvantaged candidates who did not meet these specific socioeconomic parameters.
ALSO READ: BREAKING|| Madarsa Education Act-‘Unconstitutional’ | SC Imposes Interim Stay on Allahabad HC Order
Sarthak Gupta further clarified-
“The ruling effectively abolishes a policy that unfairly favored specific groups of candidates over others, disregarding merit and instead considering socioeconomic factors and domicile status, which goes against the principle of equal opportunity.”
Although the court’s detailed order is still pending release, the judgment marks a significant step towards ensuring fairness and meritocracy in state government job recruitments. The ruling mandates the Haryana government to revise its recruitment policies to align with constitutional principles, eliminating any provisions that grant undue advantages based on socioeconomic criteria.
This decision is expected to have wide-reaching implications, setting a precedent for other states with similar policies. It reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding the Constitution and protecting individual rights against discriminatory practices in public employment.
The petitioners, including Gahlawat, have welcomed the judgment as a victory for equality and merit-based selection in government jobs. The ruling underscores the importance of a fair recruitment process that provides equal opportunities to all candidates, irrespective of their socioeconomic background or domicile.
The Haryana High Court has invalidated the socio-economic criteria introduced by the Haryana government for Group C and D recruitment. This decision marks a significant turn in the state’s recruitment policies, which had aimed to provide additional marks to certain candidates based on socio-economic conditions.
Background of the Socio-Economic Criteria
The Haryana government implemented the socio-economic criteria a few years ago. The criteria aimed to support candidates who did not have any family member in a government job, were state-domiciled, and whose family income did not exceed Rs 1.80 lakh per annum. The intention behind this move was to offer additional marks to these candidates, thereby improving their chances in the competitive recruitment process.
One of the primary petitioners, Gahlawat, argued that the allocation of additional marks under this criteria was essentially a form of reservation. The petitioner sought the quashing of the amendments, specifically the provision that earmarked 20 out of 100 marks for “socio-economic criteria and experience” based on descent or Haryana domicile.
Gahlawat contended-
“The allocation of extra marks to one particular class while excluding others is discriminatory and breaches Articles 14 and 16,” argued the petitioner. They further contended that such criteria should solely be based on merit when appointing individuals to public service positions through direct recruitment.
He stated-
“The provision of additional marks to a specific class contradicts the established legal principle that direct recruitment for public service positions should be based solely on merit.”
The petitioners argued that the socio-economic criteria were arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal. They highlighted that the criteria discriminated based on domicile and descent, which are prohibited markers under Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
“The criteria also discriminate based on domicile and descent, which are prohibited factors according to Article 16(2) of the Constitution.”
-the petitioner had submitted.
Moreover, the petitioner pointed out that there was no rationale for granting such additional marks when reservations already existed for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and socially backward classes, such as Scheduled Castes (SC) and Backward Classes (BC).
“There is no justification for providing additional marks to a specific class when reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and socially backward classes such as Scheduled Castes (SC) and Backward Classes (BC) are already in place.”
– he had contended.
Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior Deputy Advocate General of Haryana, confirmed that the High Court quashed the socio-economic criteria introduced by the Haryana government. She mentioned that a detailed order was awaited, which would provide more insights into the court’s reasoning and directives.
The ruling by the Haryana High Court is poised to have significant implications on the recruitment process within the state. By invalidating the socio-economic criteria, the court has reinforced the principle that public service appointments should be based on merit and not on socio-economic factors that could be deemed discriminatory.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values and ensuring that recruitment processes remain fair and equitable. As the state awaits the detailed order, the ramifications of this judgment will likely influence future policy-making in the realm of public service recruitment.
