Haryana High Court Strikes Down Socioeconomic Criteria in Govt Job Selection

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the socioeconomic criteria set by the Haryana government for granting additional marks to certain candidates in state government jobs as unconstitutional. This decision, announced by a division bench, strikes down the practice of awarding extra or bonus marks based on socioeconomic factors as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

Sarthak Gupta, representing one of the petitioners, shared that the court's verdict came in response to multiple petitions challenging this criteria. The lead petitioner in this case was identified as Arpit Gahlawat, alongside others who had raised objections to this policy. The Haryana government's policy aimed at providing additional marks to candidates for Group C and D category jobs under certain conditions has been nullified. This policy previously allowed for an additional five to twenty marks for candidates meeting specific socioeconomic conditions.

The now-overturned policy was introduced with the intention of aiding candidates who did not have any family members in government service, were domiciled in the state, and whose family income was below Rs 1.80 lakh per annum. However, this approach was challenged as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and illegal by the petitioners. They argued that granting additional marks to a select group was discriminatory and violated the principles of equality and meritocracy enshrined in the Constitution.

Furthermore, the petitioners contended that such criteria unjustly discriminated on the basis of domicile and descent, which are not permissible considerations under Article 162 of the Constitution. They also highlighted that there was no justifiable rationale for these additional marks when reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and socially backward classes like Scheduled Castes (SC) and Backward Classes (BC) already exist.

The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to merit-based selection for public service positions, reinforcing that any deviation from this principle must be thoroughly justified and constitutionally sound. As the detailed order from the court is awaited, this ruling marks a pivotal moment in addressing concerns over fairness and equality in government recruitment processes.