Punjab And Haryana High Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Challenging Haryana's 75% Job Quota For Locals Law
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today reserved its judgment on a bunch of pleas challenging the Haryana law (The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provides 75% reservation for local people in the private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000.The bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Moudgil today concluded hearing on...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today reserved its judgment on a bunch of pleas challenging the Haryana law (The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provides 75% reservation for local people in the private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000.
The bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Moudgil today concluded hearing on the pleas. The HC had been hearing thee matter on daily basis before since 10.03.2022.
The arguments on behalf of various Petitioners had concluded on March 14, 2022. The petitioners had alleged threat to unity, integrity and federal structure and had also challenged the constitutionality of the act as being in violation of Articles 14,15,16,19 and 21 of Constitution.
On the other hand, the state questioned the locus of Petitioner Association, the state also argued that the conditions of allotment of industrial plots (such as IMT) where similar condition of 75% employment is a binding clause. It may be noted that in terms of the directions by Supreme Court, the proceedings had to be completed tomorrow i.e. 16.03.2022.
The bench of Justice Ajay Tewari of Punjab and Haryana High Court had, on March 9, recused himself from hearing a bunch of pleas. Thereafter, the Chief Justice had allotted the matter to instant bench.
It may be noted that on repeated directions of the Court, the Centre had moved an affidavit in the matter arguing that the Haryana State was competent to enact such a law and that the Centre had not opposed the legislative competence of the Haryana State to enact the law.
It may be noted that On Feb 22, the Bench had noted it with regret that the Union of India did not enter its appearance despite being served and despite the fact that the Solicitor General of India had personally appeared in the matter on February 3, 2022.
The Court had also noted that the Solicitor General of India had himself conceded before the Court that these petitions involve substantial questions of law which would have to be gone into by this Court, however, the Union still did not enter an appearance in the matter.
Read more about what the Court said in the previous hereings here:
Senior Advocate Akshay Bhan, with Advocates Rohit Nagpal, Hiresh Choudhary, Surbhi Sharma, Ivan Singh Khosa, Shivam Grover, Akhilesh Barak appeared for the petitioner in CWP-24967-2021. Advocate Jeetender Gupta appeared for the petitioner in CWP No. 3860 of 2022. Sr. Advocate Anupam Gupta, with Advocates Tushar Sharma, Gautam Pathania, Sukhpal Singh, Shekhran Singh Virk appeared for the petitioner in CWP-26573-2021 & CWP-1698-2022. Advocate G. S. Bhanda appeared for the petitioner in (CWP-584-2022). Advocate Reena Choudhary and Advocate Vishal Sharma appeared for the petitioner in CWP-25037-2021 & 25539-2021. Addl. AG Jagbir Malik appeared for the state of Haryana
Case title - IMT INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Click here To Read/Download Order