Supreme Court Approves HC Order Quashing Haryana Govt Decision To Grant Extra Marks To Certain Domiciles In Recruitment Tests

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 24) dismissed a petition filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (SSC) against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside a 2022 Notification that granted 5% additional marks to domiciles of Haryana in recruitment to certain posts based on "socio-economic" criteria.

The Supreme Court orally expressed that the policy of the State Government was a mere 'populist measure'.

The vacation bench of Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal was hearing the pleas filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (SSC) against the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered on 31 May. The High Court had set aside the notification which granted additional marks to domiciles of Haryana in recruitment for Group C and D posts during the Common Entrance Test of 2023 (CET 2023).

Justice Oka remarked that the policy of granting an additional 5 marks to a candidate belonging to a 'denotified tribe' in Haryana whose family is not in public employment was only a populous measure to appeal to the masses and deviated from the principle of giving priority to merit.

" Meritorious candidate after his performance gets 60 marks, somebody else has also got 60 marks but only because 5 grace marks he goes up...They are all populist measures...How do you defend such an action that somebody is getting 5 marks extra?"

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani submitted that the grace marks policy was introduced by the government to give an opportunity to those families who were deprived of the security of public employment.

"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. So should they not have an opportunity for having public employment?"

Seemingly disinclined to entertain the petition further, the bench in its dismissal order noted that the impugned judgement suffered from no error.

" After perusing the impugned judgement we find absolutely no error in the impugned judgement. The SLPs are dismissed".

The AG additionally raised another concern over the High Court's direction of reconducting the written tests under Direction C which states :

"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 AG submitted that the application of the socio-economic criteria happens after the stage of the written test and not upon the CET itself. He urged that results of the written test need not be faltered with

What Was The Grant Of Additional Weightage Under The 2022 Notification?

Under this "socio-economic" criteria, additional weightage was granted by the Haryana government to domiciles of Haryana if:

- None of the applicant's family members was a regular government employee and the gross annual income of the family from all sources was less than 1.80 lakh rupees;

- The applicant was (i) widow, (ii) first or second child and his father died before attaining the age of 45 years, (iii) first or second child and his father died before the applicant attained the age of 15 years;

- The applicant belonged to a "denotified tribe" or Nomadic tribe of Haryana, which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a backward class.

Lastly, the applicant was to be awarded half per cent weightage each for a year or part thereof exceeding 6 months of experience, on the same or a higher post in any Department, Board Corporation, Company, Statutory, Body, Commission, etc. under Haryana government.

Why Was The Notification Set Aside?

The High Court while setting aside the impugned notification held that the benefit of socio-economic criteria was only given to a person who had Haryana as domicile and place of residence (the same being subject to entries in Parivar Pehchan Patra, which is only available for residents of Haryana).

Commenting that rules ought to be framed based upon actual data, not political agendas, the High Court held the grant of bonus marks (on the basis of socioeconomic criteria) in Common Entrance Test Results 2023 to be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and directed that fresh selection process be carried out.

The High Court also reiterated that reservations are required to be adopted by a State Government in terms of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, limited to the extent of requirements of a particular reserved category available in the said state.

"We find from the written submissions of the State as noticed above, that they have miserably failed to understand the ethos of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Once the provisions have been laid down under Articles 15 and 16 and under the Directive Principles, the same would apply to Pan Bharat and the State Government cannot be allowed to introduce special reservations of a nature in public employment where all the citizens are entitled to participate and seek employment."

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