HC strikes down Haryana's bonus marks policy for govt jobs as unconstitutional
A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I Mehta, which quashed the state's notification dated June 11, 2019, held that the bonus marks criteria breached Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equal treatment in public employment.
The ruling came on Thursday (May 22), but was uploaded on Friday.
The policy in question allowed candidates to earn up to 10 extra marks — five for not having any family member in government service, and additional five marks for being widowed, having a deceased father, or belonging to specific tribes. The court found this system discriminatory and a violation of merit-based selection principles.
'By carving out an artificial class of applicants, who would be entitled to five bonus marks, 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,' the court said.
Citing Indira Sawhney vs the Union of India, the bench held that once reservation has 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 per cent ceiling limit'. The bench said that 'what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly'.
The court order came on petitions filed by government job aspirants including Neeraj and Deepak, who argued that the bonus marks unfairly pushed less qualified candidates ahead of those with higher written exam scores. The court agreed: 'If the bonus marks are deleted from the selection process, the meritorious candidates would have been selected. Such a selection (bonus marks)…would be in violation of the principles of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.'
The judgment also cited a 2024 precedent — Sukriti Malik vs. State of Haryana — where similar bonus marks had been struck down by the high court. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The state had defended its policy as a way to promote social justice, citing the Latin maxim salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law). But the court rejected this justification: 'Any process of appeasing the people on the principle of salus populi est suprema lex stands vitiated on the anvil of Article 14.' The judges also noted the absence of any legal backing or data to support the policy, calling the selection process 'wholly slipshod.'
In a move to protect candidates already appointed under the flawed system, the court applied the 'no fault' principle. 'We apply 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,' the court said. It allowed these candidates to continue in service but without seniority.
The court ordered the government to issue a revised merit list within three months, based solely on written exam scores. Those already appointed but who do not make the new list will be retained on an ad hoc basis until fresh vacancies arise. Newly inducted candidates will receive seniority and salary benefits from the original appointment dates of their counterparts.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Sarthak Gupta and R S Malik among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Whether President would seek SC opinion is her prerogative, says CJI
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Centre did not have to labour to persuade a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday to recognise an apparent constitutional fallacy in the two-judge bench's April 8 virtual directive to the President to seek SC's opinion on constitutional validity of a bill reserved for her consideration by a governor. The constitution bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar appeared convinced by solicitor general Tushar Mehta's argument that the two-judge bench could not have used SC's Article 142 powers to step into the governor's shoes and grant deemed assent to 10 bills of Tamil Nadu. "These two directions - the President to seek opinion of SC and deemed assent - are fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional," Mehta said. SC fallaciously assumed that the President, the highest constitutional authority of India, lacks ability or wherewithal to ascertain constitutional validity of bills, which have been passed by an assembly but reserved for her consideration by the governor, he argued. CJI Gavai responded to his argument about such directions being hazardous for the stone-carved constitutional doctrine of separation of powers by saying, "If all the bills reserved for the President's consideration become part of Presidential Reference, SC will do no other judicial work except giving advisory opinions as each Reference has to be addressed by a bench of minimum five judges." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Telematics Will Shift Tech Into High Gear: 7 Projected Changes Over the Next 10 Years TechBullion Undo A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had on Apr 9 said whenever a bill is reserved for the President's consideration on the ground of its patent unconstitutionality, "the President must be guided by the fact that it is the constitutional courts which have been entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating upon the questions of constitutionality and legality of an executive or legislative action. Therefore, as a measure of prudence, the President ought to make a reference to this court in exercise of powers under Article 143 of the Constitution (and seek SC's opinion)". Mehta told the bench to take example of a case where the President obtains such opinion from SC on the constitutional validity of a bill and grants assent. With bill thus becoming an Act, as in the case of the Tamil Nadu bills which have been published in the gazette mentioning that SC has granted deemed assent, how would an HC or SC adjudicate its validity given the fact that it has become a law after the SC had already vetted its constitutionally validity? Steering clear of the maze of consequential constitutional complications that would emerge if SC engaged in pre-law stage vetting of validity of bills, the CJI said, "Whether the President would seek advisory opinion of SC under Article 143 is her sole prerogative." Mehta said Article 142 powers, exclusively given to SC to do complete justice by acting within the constitutional and statutory parameters, cannot be used to assume the role of another coordinate constitutional authority like governor. He said the Constitution wherever needed has provided the 'deemed' provision, and hence, it prohibits SC from reading in 'deemed assent' provision into the Constitution using the powers it enjoys under Article 142. On the President's last question - whether states could invoke Article 32 right to directly move SC seeking a mandamus to governor, Mehta said any federal dispute involving Centre and state(s); or state(s) and state(s), must be resolved politically or in the alternative, a suit under Article 131 can be filed in SC. However, he said he would take instructions from the President, whether she would still press for an opinion from SC on this issue and inform the bench on Tuesday.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Tewari raises Chandigarh's waste management issues in Parliament
1 2 Chandigarh: Chandigarh MP Manish Tewari on Thursday raised multiple questions related to solid waste management and its associated issues in the Lok Sabha. While responding to the questions from Tewari regarding the solid waste processing plant in Chandigarh, generation of garbage, or any action on the private concessionaire, Union minister of state for the ministry of housing & urban affairs (MoHUA) Tokhan Sahu said in the Lok Sabha that sanitation was a state subject under the 7th Schedule and by the 74th amendment of the Constitution of India, the devolution of power had been made to the urban local bodies (ULBs) for water and sanitation services. "It is the responsibility of states, UTs, and ULBs to plan, design, execute, and operate sanitation projects in the urban areas of the country. The ministry of housing & urban affairs (MoHUA) supplements the efforts of states and UTs by providing policy directions, financial and technical support, sharing manuals, standards of procedures (SoPs) on solid waste management (SWM) and used water management (UWM), and issuing various advisories and guidelines from time to time for choosing appropriate technologies to manage solid and liquid waste," the minister stated. The minister further said, "The UT of Chandigarh has reported that 100% door-to-door collection is practised in 100% of the wards and source segregation is being practised in 100% of the wards, which is 35 wards out of the total 35 wards. Further, the processing of municipal solid waste is also reported to be 100%, which is total 490 tons per day (TPD) of waste generated is processed. Further, the UT of Chandigarh has been allocated an amount of Rs 28.50 crore under the SWM (solid waste management) component of SBM-U 2.0. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like They Were So Beautiful Before; Now Look At Them; Number 10 Will Shock You Reportingly Undo Out of the allocated funds, action plans having a Central share of Rs 28.50 crore have been approved." During the reply, it was also mentioned that to support states and UTs with adequate sanitation and solid waste management systems, the Govt of India launched the Swachh Bharat Mission-Urban (SBM-U) on October 2, 2014, with the objective of open defecation free (ODF) cities and for scientific processing of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in all urban areas of the country, including Chandigarh. To carry forward the progress made, Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM-U) 2.0 was launched on October 1, 2021, for a period of five years with a vision of achieving garbage-free status for all cities through source segregation, door-to-door collection, and scientific management of all fractions of waste. Under SBM-U, funds are released by the Govt of India to the states/UTs based on their action plan duly approved by the state-level technical committee. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
