High Court Declares Haryana Govt's Recruitment Notification Granting Bonus Marks Based On 'Socio-Economic Criteria' As Unconstitutional

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the Haryana Government's 2019 notification awarding up to 10 bonus marks for “socio-economic criteria and experience” in recruitment for Group B and C posts, after holding it to be in violation of Articles of 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta said, "we find that the selection process has been “tainted” on account of the granting of bonus marks. If the bonus marks are deleted from the selection process, the meritorious candidates would have been selected. Such a selection which is solely based on acquiring bonus marks would be in violation of the principles of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Carves artificial class, slipshody selection process

Speaking for the bench, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma opined that, "carving out artificial class of applicants, who would be entitled to 05 bonus marks, as above, the principles enshrined under Article 16 would stand violated. No other reservation, except the one as available under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution, can be laid down by any State. Any process of appeasing the people on the principle of salus populi est suprema lex stands vitiated on the anvil of Article 14."

The Court highlighted that the "State has conducted the entire selection in a wholly slipshod manner."

It further pointed that, notification of granting the 10 bonus marks for socio economic criteria and experience is not based on any Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

What Cannot Be Done Directly, Cannot Be Done Indirectly

Adding that, "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly," the Court noted that, no data was collected before laying down such a socio economic criteria.

It found that, "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 as laid down in Indira Sawhney Vs Union Of India And Ors ; AIR 2000 Supreme Court 498 and recognized by the Constitution framers while making amendment in Article 16 (4) (b)."

The Court however saved the appointment made considering the theory of “no fault” with regard to the candidates who would be ousted from the merit list although they had cleared the written examination and have been working for quite a long time now.

It said that he candidates, who would have been appointed, went under a cumbersome selection process and their appointments were made in terms of the method and manner of selection as laid down in the advertisement.

Socio Economic criteria not right, but appointees should not suffer

The bench clarified that, "although, we have not approved the socio economic criteria adopted vide notification dated 11.06.2019, such appointees ought not be made to suffer."

While noting that after 2019, vacancies may be available with the State Government, the Court "saved their appointments with a condition that they would have no claim for seniority in terms of the advertisement of 2019."

In the light of the above the Court issued the following directions:

A. The State would be required to publish a revised result and on the basis of the revised result, the candidates who are found to be meritorious, would be entitled to be considered for appointment for the concerned posts which were advertised in the year 2019.

B. Those candidates, who have already been appointed, if they fall in the said merit would continue to perform their duties.

C. Those appointees, who are going to be ousted on account of the revised merit list, shall be allowed to continue against future posts and in this regard, the State Government may conduct an exercise of finding out vacancies for them. If no vacancies are available, they will be allowed to continue on ad hoc basis till vacancies are made available. Their appointments would be treated from the date the vacancies are so made available and would have no claim on the posts which were advertised vide advertisement in 2019. The power is being exercised to save such appointments as there was no fault of such persons, who have already appointed and have been working for years now.

D. The candidates, who are placed in the revised merit, will be treated as senior to those whose appointments have been saved although not falling in the merit.

E. The new incumbents, who would be selected on account of the revised merit list, would be entitled to claim their appointments from the date the similarly situated other candidates were appointed with all consequential benefits of seniority and pay parity. However, their salary would be fixed notionally from the date others were appointed till the date they join the post.

Title: NEERAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [along with connected petitions]

Click here to read/download the order