"Contrary To Mandate Of Article 16(2)": Uttarakhand HC Stays 30% Quota To Women With Domicile In State Civil Services

The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed a government order of the year 2006 that sought to provide 30 percent horizontal reservation only to the women candidates domiciled in Uttarakhand in the matter of public employment.

Staying the operation of the govt order to the extent it provided reservations to only the state's women candidates, the Court clarified that reservation would remain in place a horizontal reservation for women candidates irrespective of their 'domicile' or 'place of residence'.

The Court's order was based on its prima facie view that the government order was contrary to the mandate of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 

Here it may be noted that Article 16 (2) essentially provides that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.

The Court categorically observed that the State Government, cannot, merely by issuing a government order, provide for reservation for women candidates on the basis of their domicile in the matter of public employment in the State.

The case in brief

Essentially, a bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice R S Khulbe was hearing a writ petition filed by Pavitra Chauhan, Ananya Attri and others from outside the state belonging to the unreserved category who appeared for the state civil examination.

It was their case that despite securing higher marks in the preliminary test of the state civil examination than the cut-off marks (79) for women candidates with state domicile, they were denied the right to appear for the main examination.

Thus, they challenged two GOs on the ground that they provide horizontal reservation [in the examination conducted for the posts of Uttarakhand Combined Service, Senior Service of the State Public Service Commission] on the basis of the 'domicile' of women candidates in the State of Uttarakhand.

It was their specific plea that as per Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, there has to be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State and that the state can't, merely on the ground of domicile (as was sought to be done by the state government), provide preferential treatment to a class of citizens.

It was also argued that not allowing them to appear in the main examination despite getting more marks than the cut-off marks for women candidates with state domicile was an act of discrimination against the. Lastly, it was contended that as per Article 16 (2), the state government doesn't have any right to provide domicile-based reservations and that this power vests only with the Parliament.

Court's order

Staying the operation of the Government Order dated 24.07.2006 in so far as it seeks to provide 30 percent horizontal reservation only in respect of women candidates of Uttarakhand in the matter of public employment, the Court directed the Commission to permit the petitioners to appear in the Mains Examination provisionally.

The Court also issued notices to the state government as well as to the UKPSC and listed the matter on October 11, 2022, for final disposal.

Appearances

Counsels Harshit Sanwal and Sugandha Jain for the petitioners.

S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General along with Mr. C.S. Rawat, CSC for the State.

Counsel Ashish Joshi, for the respondent- Commission.

Case title - Ananya Attri and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another and connected matter

Click here To Read/Download Order