HC strikes down Haryana's bonus marks policy for govt jobs as unconstitutional
In a major setback for Haryana's recruitment policy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down the state's 2019 notification that awarded 10 bonus marks to certain candidates in government job selections based on socio-economic criteria, holding it to be in violation of Constitutional guarantees of equality and merit.
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
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
Trump files appeal to SC over federal mass firings
Washington, June 3 (UNI) The U.S. Trump administration has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the federal court's injunction that had prevented federal agencies from carrying out large-scale workforce reductions and reorganizations. In the appeal, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that "controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland" of the president's authority, and "the Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise" his core constitutional powers. On May 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's appeal, upholding the temporary injunction issued earlier by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction barred federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget from moving forward with broad-scale layoffs and structural reorganizations. The Ninth Circuit held that implementing extensive layoffs and reorganizations would seriously impair many areas, including the national food safety system and veterans' healthcare, and therefore such actions should be suspended while the litigation proceeds. On May 9, Illston issued a two-week temporary injunction requiring federal agencies to halt enforcement of the administrative order signed by President Donald Trump in February, as well as the subsequent memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget. She also ordered agencies to rescind any layoff notices issued under the president's order, to reinstate positions for employees placed on administrative leave, and to provide appropriate compensation. In her ruling, Illston stated that the president must obtain congressional approval in order to reform federal agencies. Agencies may not undertake mass reorganizations or layoffs without authorization from Congress. On May 22, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California further ruled to extend the injunction indefinitely. The Department of Justice filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit the following day. UNI XC GNK
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Mau MLA Abbas Ansari disqualified from UP Assembly after conviction in hate speech case
Abbas Ansari, an MLA from Uttar Pradesh's Mau constituency and son of the gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari, has been disqualified from the Uttar Pradesh Assembly after a court convicted him in a hate speech case, the Hindustan Times reported on Monday. On Saturday, Chief Judicial Magistrate KP Singh sentenced Abbas Ansari, a member of the Om Prakash Rajbhar-led Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party, to two years in prison. The court held that while the Constitution granted the right to freedom of expression, it was not unrestricted. 'No one can say anything, anywhere, anytime,' Live Law quoted Singh as having said. 'There is no place for hate or provocative speech in the political field, and it becomes serious when the intention is to create disorder on the basis of religion and thus, influencing elections directly or indirectly.' The case pertained to a statement Abbas Ansari made during an election rally in Mau in March 2022, in which he told government officials that he would 'settle scores and teach them a lesson' after the elections, PTI reported. The Election Commission had imposed a 24-hour campaign ban on him after the remark, Maktoob Media reported. A first information report was filed against Abbas Ansari under the Indian Penal Code sections related to punishment for criminal intimidation, punishment for undue influence or personation at an election, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, threat of injury to public servant, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, and punishment of criminal conspiracy. Apart from Abbas Ansari, the FIR also named more than 150 others, including his brother Umar Ansari and his election agent Mansoor Ahmed Ansari, according to Maktoob Media. The court on Saturday stated that Abbas Ansari had been found guilty of delivering a provocative speech, which was a serious offence. 'If senior officials appointed in the district, who are under the direct control of the Election Commission during the Model Code of Conduct period, are threatened with paybacks, then it certainly creates an indirect sense of fear among the voters as well,' Live Law quoted the bench as having said. A day later, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly issued a notification stating that Abbas Ansari had been disqualified, the Hindustan Times reported. Pradeep Dubey, the principal secretary of the Assembly, also said that the Mau seat had been declared vacant. Dubey added that the Election Commission had been informed about the vacancy and that it would issue a notification for holding an election. Abbas Ansari's father, Mukhtar Ansari, had a total of 65 cases against him and had been in jail since 2005 after he surrendered to the police in connection with a communal riot that took place in the town of Mau. On March 14 last year, he was sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court for MPs and MLAs in the 34-year-old Ghazipur fake arms licence case. This was his seventh conviction over 18 months. The gangster-turned-politician died in custody at the Banda Medical College in Uttar Pradesh on March 28, 2024. Hospital authorities said he died of a cardiac arrest. A week before his death, Mukhtar Ansari had told a court in the Barabanki district that his health had deteriorated after he was served food allegedly laced with poison inside the prison, reported PTI. He had alleged that he was poisoned 40 days earlier as well.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
How is President's Rule imposed?
The story so far: A delegation of 10 MLAs from the Manipur Assembly met the Governor of the State and pressed for the formation of a viable government in Manipur that has been under President's Rule since February 2025. What is President's Rule? Article 356 is invoked to impose President's Rule in a State after removing the State government. While there are duties cast on federal governments in the U.S. and Australia to protect the States, their constitutions do not have any provision for removing State governments. Under Article 356, the President (central government) may take over the governance of a State when it cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The President can make such a proclamation based on a receipt of report from the Governor of a State or otherwise. The latter situation may arise under Article 365 due to failure of a State to comply with or give effect to any directions of the Union government. The proclamation of President's Rule must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of its issue by a simple majority. Once approved by Parliament, the President's Rule continues for six months, from the date of proclamation, unless revoked earlier. It can be extended for a further period of six months at a time by an approval of both the Houses of Parliament by a simple majority. The President's Rule cannot extend beyond a period of three years in total. What has been the history? Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly debates wished that Article 356 would never be called into operation and that it would remain a dead letter. However, it has been a travesty that Article 356 was misused on several occasions, removing elected governments that enjoyed majority in the States, violating constitutional principles and federalism. Reasons varied from loss in Lok Sabha elections to deterioration of law and order. When it comes to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly after imposition of President's Rule, there has been no uniformity in the approach. More than constitutional principles, it was political expediency that drove such decisions in the past. Various Governors have adopted different approaches in similar situations in regard to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. The advice of a Chief Minister, enjoying majority support in the Assembly, is normally binding on the Governor. However, where the Chief Minister had lost such support, some Governors have refused to dissolve the Legislative Assembly on his/her advice, while others in similar situations, accepted the advice, and dissolved the Assembly. The Assembly was dissolved in Kerala (1970) and in Punjab (1971) on the advice of the Chief Minister whose claim to majority support was doubtful. However, in more or less similar circumstances in Punjab (1967), Uttar Pradesh (1968), Madhya Pradesh (1969), and Orissa (1971), the Legislative Assembly was not dissolved immediately based on the outgoing Ministry's advice. Attempts were made to install alternative Ministries. What have the courts ruled? The Supreme Court and High Courts during the first four decades after Independence refrained from interfering in the decision of the Centre to impose President's Rule in States. It was only after a categorical judgment of the Supreme Court in the S. R. Bommai case (1994), that misuse of Article 356 has been restricted. The court in this judgment held that Article 356 should be imposed only in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery as distinguished from an ordinary breakdown of law and order. It also held that imposition of President's Rule is subject to judicial review and should not be misused for political reasons. It further ruled that till Parliament approves the imposition of President's Rule, the Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved, and can be only kept under suspended animation. The higher judiciary has been a watchdog, since the S. R. Bommai case, against the arbitrary use of Article 356. Notably in the case of Bihar (2005), Uttarakhand (2016) and Arunachal Pradesh (2016), the courts have struck down the wrongful imposition of President's Rule. When can it be revoked? If President's Rule is imposed because of the lack of a government with majority, then usually fresh elections are held. After elections, the President's Rule is revoked and a popularly elected government takes over the governance of the State. Manipur was placed under President's Rule in February 2025 due to the deteriorating security situation and consequent political developments in the State. The assembly, whose five-year term ends in March 2027, has been kept under suspended animation. Considering that more than 18 months are left before the assembly term expires, it would be prudent to install a government that enjoys the confidence of the assembly. More importantly, it should enjoy the confidence of different sections of society of the State. Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and author of 'Courseware on Polity Simplified'. He currently trains at Officers IAS Academy. Views expressed are personal.
