Supreme Court To Hear On Jun 24 Haryana SSC's Plea Against Quashing Of Notification Granting 5% Addl Marks To State Domiciles In CET

The Supreme Court today posted to June 24 pleas filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (SSC) against setting aside of a 2022 notification which granted 5% additional marks to domiciles of Haryana in recruitment to certain posts based on a "socio-economic" criteria.

The vacation bench of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti was dealing with Haryana SSC's challenge to a judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 31 May setting aside the notification which granted additional marks to domiciles of Haryana in recruitment for Group C and D posts.

Under this "socio-economic" criteria, additional weightage was granted by the Haryana government to domiciles of Haryana if:

- None of the applicant's family member was a regular government employee and gross annual income of the family from all sources was less than 1.80 lakh rupees;

- The applicant was a (i) widow, (ii) first or second child, and his father died before attaining the age of 45 years, (iii) first or second child, and his father died before the applicant attained the age of 15 years;

- The applicant belonged to "denotified tribe" or Nomadic tribe of Haryana, which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a backward class.

Lastly, the applicant was to be awarded half percent weightage each for year or part thereof exceeding 6 months of experience, on the same or a higher post in any Department, Board Corporation, Company, Statutory, Body, Commission, etc. under Haryana government.

Setting aside the notification, the High Court observed that the benefit of socio-economic criteria was only given to a person who was having Haryana as domicile and place of residence (the same being subject to entries in Parivar Pehchan Patra, which is only available for residents 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 said.

Commenting that rules ought to be framed based upon actual data, not political agendas, the High Court held the grant of bonus marks (on the basis of socio economic criteria) in Common Entrance Test Results 2023 to be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and directed that fresh selection process be carried out.

"This Court finds that the socio economic criteria which has been introduced by the respondents is clearly an act of arbitrariness and discrimination created to the similarly situated persons and no person ought to be given benefits."

The High Court also reiterated that reservations are required to be adopted by a State Government in terms of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, limited to the extent of requirements of a particular reserved category available in the said state.

"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."

Aggrieved by the High Court judgment, Haryana SSC and others approached the top Court.

During the hearing today, counsel for petitioners urged that there was urgency in the matter. Apprising that two other petitions had been filed by the petitioners, but the same were not listed today, he prayed that all cases may be listed together on Friday.

After hearing the counsel, Justice Nath commented, "today it is likely to be dismissed, [that's why] you'll take it in July". Declining to entertain the submission regarding urgency, the bench posted the matter to June 24.

Case Title: Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors. v. Sukriti Malik, SLP(C) No. 13275-13277/2024