'Rules Can't Be Based On Political Agenda': High Court On Haryana Govt's Socio-Economic Criteria For Extra Marks In Govt Jobs Recruitment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the rule introduced in 2022 by the Haryana Government for recruitment of Group C and Group D posts which provided for additional five percent marks under socioeconomic criteria to the domicile of the state, observing that, "rules are required to be framed after actual data" and "cannot be based on the political agendas."

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that, "We find from the written submissions of the State as noticed above, that they have miserably failed to understand the ethos of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Once the provisions have been laid down under the Articles 15 and 16 and under the Directive Principles, the same would apply PAN Bharat and the State Government cannot be allowed to introduce special reservations of a nature in public employment where all the citizens are entitled to participate and seek employment."

Reservations is required to be adopted by the concerned State Government in terms of Articles 15 and 16, limited to the extent of the requirements of a particular reserved category available in the said State, the bench opined.

In a detailed judgement released on Monday, the Court said that, "no State can restrict employment to its own 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 post."

The socio economic criteria for Groups C and D posts provided that 5% weightage to be given to a candidate on different accounts. Following class of people were broadly considered under "socio-economic" criteria for granting additional marks 5% marks:

-If none of his family members are the government employees and gross annual income of the family from all sources is less than 1.80 lakh rupees.

-The widow or the first or second child and his father had died before attaining age of 45 years.

-If the applicant belongs to "denotified tribe" or Nomadic tribe of Haryana.

Lastly, the applicant was to be awarded half percent weightage each for year or part thereof exceeding six months of experience, on the same or a higher post in any Department, Board Corporation, Company, Statutory, Body, Commission, etc. under Haryana Government.

After hearing the submissions, the Court opined that socio economic criteria is clearly an act of arbitrariness and discrimination created to the similarly situated persons and no person ought to be given benefits.

It noted that the benefit of socio-economic criteria was only given to a person who is having a Haryana domicile and place of residence.

Violation Of Article 14

The Court said that the law has been well settled by the Supreme Court that weightage on the basis "of residence cannot be allowed to be granted". The Right to Equality, as enshrined in the Constitution, has been violated and a class has been created based on the family background simplicitor which does not have any intangible differentia.

The candidates whose parents are in Government job, would be denied 5% weightage while the ward of a shop keeper or a private job holder would be entitled for 5% weightage and ward of a nurse or peon doctor employed in the State Government would be denied the said benefit, the Court added.

The Court noted that criteria also provides for gross annual family income to be less than Rs. 1.80 lakh rupees. "Thus, a separate criteria of economically backward class has been carved out which goes beyond the reservations already provided to economically weaker sections of the society," it said.

It also found that that the definition of “family” for the purpose of socio economic criteria includes all members namely father, mother, wife, unmarried brother and unmarried son. Thus, a person having an unmarried brother, who is employed, would be deprived from being given the benefit of bonus marks under the socio economic criteria.

"A widow has been granted the benefit while an unmarried daughter has not been given any benefit nor any divorcee has been given any benefit whereas, all three categories of women are not self-sufficient," said the bench.

It further added that 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 the candidates who apply for the post are equally entitled to selection based on the common examination conducted for all. Granting additional marks to persons who are locally placed and who have Haryana Parivar Pehchan Patar in their possession, reflects that while the State has deleted the words “who is bonafide residents of Haryana” by making an amendment on 20.02.2023, the requirement continues under the socio economic criteria for grant of marks," said the Court.

State Cannot Restrict Employment To Its Own Residents

The Court observed that the socio economic criteria is also subject to entries in Parivar Pehchan Patra which is only available for the residents of Haryana. 5% weightage have also been allotted to the residents of Haryana belonging to denotified Tribe whereas, there is not Scheduled Tribe recognized in the State of Haryana.

"No State can restrict employment to its own 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 post," it added.

State Can Is Required To Provide Reservation In Terms Of Articles 15, 16

The division bench said that, once the provisions have been laid down under the Articles 15 and 16 and under the Directive Principles, the same would apply PAN Bharat and the State Government cannot be allowed to introduce special reservations of a nature in public employment where all the citizens are entitled to participate and seek employment.

"In the opinion of this Court, reservations is required to be adopted by the concerned State Government in terms of Articles 15 and 16, limited to the extent of the requirements of a particular reserved category available in the said State," said the Court.

In the light of the above, the Court said that, "on the anvil of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, socio economic criteria adopted by the respondents is violative and seeks to create a class of unequals amongst equal."

Consequently, the Court concluded that:

A. The socio economic criteria introduced vide amendment notification dated 05.05.2022 is quashed and set aside. The bonus marks granted on the basis of socio economic criteria held to be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

B. CET result declared on 10.01.2023 as well as subsequent result dated 25.07.2023 are quashed. It is directed that the fresh merit shall be now prepared solely on the basis of the CET marks of the candidates who have appeared in the same. Making it as a basis, the State/Commission shall now issue a fresh advertisement for filling up various posts and each candidate shall be allowed to apply strictly in accordance with the Rules for the posts and if more than four times applicants are available for the posts, the respondents may lay down a cut-off of the CET for the purpose of participation.

C. Those candidates, who have been appointed on various posts on the basis of the earlier result, shall be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process if they fall in the new merit list of the CET. Till fresh selection is prepared they shall be allowed to continue to perform their duties on the posts to which they have appointed. However, if they are not selected ultimately in the fresh process, they shall have to leave the posts and their appointments shall stand terminated forthwith. No right shall be created in their favour on account of continuing on the posts nor will they be entitled to claim any benefit on account of the same except the salary for the period during which they perform their duties.

D. Keeping in view our findings relating to conducting of examination without declaring the result of CET finally by the Commission, we direct the Chief Secretary, Haryana to take steps to appoint a suitable candidate having experience of conducting examinations as Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection like the Controller of Examinations of any State Universities.

E.In order to maintain transparency and consistency, the Commission is henceforth directed to frame Rules of the Commission for conducting of its examinations without leaving any discretion for its officials or Members to take decisions on their whims and fancies which has resulted in the present litigation.

F. The exercise shall be completed afresh positively within a period of six months.

Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant in LPA-1028-2023.

Mr. Divyank Shukla, Advocate and Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in CWP No. 605-2023.

Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in CWPs No. 25781 & 28289 of 2023.

Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Munjal, Advocate with Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Sumit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-4774-2023.

Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-17365-2023.

Mr. R.S. Malik (Ravi) and Ms. Sukriti Malik, Advocates for the petitioners in CWPs No.1842, 6731 and 1563 of 2024.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate for the respondents in LPA-1037-2023.

Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior DAG, Haryana,

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr.Divyansh Shukla, Advocate and. Ms. Nitika Goel, Advocate for the respondents

Title: SUKRITI MALIK V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [other connected matters]

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 193

Click here to read/download the order