Uttarakhand HC, on Wednesday (April 3rd), questions state government on controversial petition challenging 30% horizontal reservation for domiciled women in government jobs.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Nainital, Uttarakhand: The Uttarakhand High Court, during a hearing on Wednesday(April 3rd), raised questions to the state government regarding a controversial petition challenging the provision of a 30% horizontal reservation for domiciled women in state government jobs.
The court’s proceedings were led by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal. A petition filed by Satya Dev Tyagi, which critically examines the surrounding the reservation for women domiciled in Uttarakhand.
Tyagi’s argument challenges Section 3(1) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Horizontal Reservation for Women) Act, 2022.
Section 3(1) of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Horizontal Reservation for Women) Act, 2022-
In direct recruitment in public services and posts, in the vacancies to be recruited, 20 percent Horizontal reservation shall be given till 24 July, 2006 and 30 percent after that in the favour of concerned women candidates permanently domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand.
He asserts that-
“According to Tyagi, the allocation of 30 percent reservation for women from the state surpasses the limitations outlined in Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.”
The dispute arises following the announcement made by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on March 14, 2024, advertising several vacancies in the provincial civil services, including prominent roles like Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and District Commandant Home Guard, among others. Of significance is Clause 10(d) of the advertisement, which outlines a 30% horizontal reservation for female candidates domiciled in Uttarakhand, leading to the current legal challenge.
Kartikeya Hari Gupta, representing the petitioner, voiced a fundamental critique of the reservation policy, arguing-
“horizontal reservation based only on domicile should not be made.”
This statement encapsulates the petitioner’s challenge to the domicile-based reservation’s constitutional validity, suggesting that such a criterion for reservation might not align with the broader principles of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner’s stance is that the Uttarakhand State Legislature’s enactment of the said Act constitutes a violation of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering it unconstitutional. This perspective invites a rigorous examination of the intersection between state policy, constitutional rights, and the nuanced dynamics of affirmative action in the realm of public employment.
The Uttarakhand High Court has scheduled the next hearing for May 7.