The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a 2022 rule introduced by the Haryana Government that granted an additional five percent marks for Group C and Group D post recruitments under socioeconomic criteria to the domicile of the State.

Holding that the criteria was clearly an act of arbitrariness and discrimination, the Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that, "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 percent 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.

The High Court observed that an illegal procedure had been adopted which could not be allowed to be perpetuated.

In that vein, it was observed 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... 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 differential. 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."

It was emphasized that no State could restrict employment to its own residents alone by allowing the benefit of 5% weightage in marks.

Subsequently, the Court reached the following conclusions:

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.

Cause Title: Sukriti Malik vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Sanjeev Prakash SharmaJustice Sudeepti SharmaEWS Quota

Ananya Soni