CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday termed as unconstitutional the socio-economic criteria set by the Haryana government to give extra marks to certain categories of candidates in state government jobs, counsel for one of the petitioners said.
"The socio-economic norms have been held to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16. This judgment was delivered by a division bench in the court today," said Sarthak Gupta, lawyer for one of the petitioners.
The practice of awarding extra marks or bonus marks has been declared unconstitutional, Gupta said.
The court order came on petitions that challenged the socio-economic norms.He said, those petitions in which this criterion has been challenged have been allowed.
He said that a detailed order in the case has not been issued yet.
He said that the main petitioner in this case was Arpit Gehlawat while later some other people filed petitions.
“There is a policy of Haryana Government for government recruitments for Group 'C' 'D' category jobs, under which they used to give some extra marks, which has been kept aside.
He said, “In some recruitments it was weightage of five marks, in some it was 20.This policy has been declared unconstitutional."
The Haryana government had introduced socio-economic criteria a few years ago, with the aim of providing additional marks to certain categories of candidates, including those who do not have any family member in a government job, are residents of the state and His family income does not exceed Rs 1.80. Lakhs per year.
According to one of the petitioners, the said socio-economic criteria is arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.
The petitioner submitted, inter alia, that giving additional marks to a certain category at the exclusion of others, for other reasons, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
The petitioner had argued that giving additional marks to a certain category was an insult to the settled law that the criteria for appointment of persons to posts in public services through direct recruitment should be pure merit.The petitioner said the criteria discriminates on the basis of domicile and descent which are prohibited markers under Article 162 of the Constitution.
He argued that when reservation is already provided for EWS as well as socially backward classes like Scheduled Caste SC and Backward Class BC, there is no justification for giving such additional marks to a certain class.
"The socio-economic norms have been held to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16. This judgment was delivered by a division bench in the court today," said Sarthak Gupta, lawyer for one of the petitioners.
The practice of awarding extra marks or bonus marks has been declared unconstitutional, Gupta said.
The court order came on petitions that challenged the socio-economic norms.He said, those petitions in which this criterion has been challenged have been allowed.
He said that a detailed order in the case has not been issued yet.
He said that the main petitioner in this case was Arpit Gehlawat while later some other people filed petitions.
“There is a policy of Haryana Government for government recruitments for Group 'C' 'D' category jobs, under which they used to give some extra marks, which has been kept aside.
He said, “In some recruitments it was weightage of five marks, in some it was 20.This policy has been declared unconstitutional."
The Haryana government had introduced socio-economic criteria a few years ago, with the aim of providing additional marks to certain categories of candidates, including those who do not have any family member in a government job, are residents of the state and His family income does not exceed Rs 1.80. Lakhs per year.
According to one of the petitioners, the said socio-economic criteria is arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.
The petitioner submitted, inter alia, that giving additional marks to a certain category at the exclusion of others, for other reasons, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
The petitioner had argued that giving additional marks to a certain category was an insult to the settled law that the criteria for appointment of persons to posts in public services through direct recruitment should be pure merit.The petitioner said the criteria discriminates on the basis of domicile and descent which are prohibited markers under Article 162 of the Constitution.
He argued that when reservation is already provided for EWS as well as socially backward classes like Scheduled Caste SC and Backward Class BC, there is no justification for giving such additional marks to a certain class.
