Populist Measures, How Can You Defend It: Apex Court While Dismissing Haryana's Appeal Against High Court's Order Quashing Rules For Extra Marks Based On Domicile

The Supreme Court, today, dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission ('SSC') against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing a 2022 rule introduced by the Haryana Government granting an additional five per cent marks for Group C and Group D post recruitments under socioeconomic criteria to the domicile of the State.

The Vacation Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal said, "After perusing the impugned judgment, we find absolutely no error in the impugned judgment. The special leave petitions are dismissed."

Attorney General R Venkataramani said grace marks policy was introduced by the Central Government to provide an opportunity to families who were deprived of the security in public employment. "There is a statute...because of the decision of earlier division bench decisions, the policy was upheld.", he said.

Justice Oka remarked, "Meritorious candidate performs...he gets 60 marks...somebody else has got 60 marks, only because 5 grace marks have been given...They are all populist measures...How do you defend such an action that somebody is getting 5 marks extra?"

Attorney General further submitted, "In group C and Group D employment, which is normally at a local level...you don't travel from Tamil Nadu to Haryana for employment...there is some basis the principle works."

Justice Oka further said, "How do you defend such action where somebody gets extra 5 marks."

The AG said, "The Division Bench earlier approved this policy...In case of disapproval, there has to be some procedure...you cannot just disagree...Who is given this 5% extra benefit? A person whose family is not in employment....the government wants to say that the family which is not in public employment should have an opportunity. Should they not have an opportunity for having public employment?"

AG further highlighted another concern regarding the direction, given by the High Court, of reconducting the written tests. It was directed, "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."

The High Court had observed, "The respondents-State has conducted the entire selection in a wholly slipshod manner. The notification of granting the bonus marks of 5% for socio economic criteria and experience is not based on any Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is also noticed that no data was collected before laying down such a socio economic criteria... once the reservations have already been provided statutorily under the EWS category, as well as on account of social backwardness by providing reservation for backward class, further granting benefit under socio economic criteria would lead to breach of 50% ceiling limit".

The socio-economic criteria for Groups C and D posts provided an additional 5% weightage to candidates based on specific conditions. These included situations where no family member of the candidate was employed in the government and the gross annual family income was less than 1.80 lakh rupees.

Additional marks were also awarded to widows, or to the first or second child whose father had passed away before reaching the age of 45 years. Furthermore, candidates who belonged to a "denotified tribe" or a Nomadic tribe of Haryana were given preference.

Moreover, candidates were awarded half a per cent extra weightage for each year, or part of a year exceeding six months, of experience in the same or a higher post within any department, board, corporation, company, statutory body, or commission under the Haryana Government.

Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.

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