Latest news with #MeenakshiIMehta
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh: HC frowns on plea against street vendors, orders welfare cell for them
The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed the Chandigarh municipal corporation (MC) to establish a vendors' cell for ensuring their welfare and preventing genuine vendors from getting harmed. The high court bench of justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and justice Meenakshi I Mehta passed these directions while dismissing petitions from Manimajra Vyapar Mandal and a Residential Welfare Association (RWA) in Manimajra. The court also slapped a cost of ₹50,000 on each, which would be deposited to the MC for being used for the welfare of street vendors and their families. 'The petition, prime facie, appears to be a motivated petition with a view to use the legal forum for evicting and destabilising the local business of street vendors. We cannot allow such abuse of process of law,' the bench said while imposing the cost and dismissing the plea. The petitioners said they have residential houses and shops/ booths in the area in question. However, inaction by the authorities in removing encroachments by street vendors from public paths, roads and public property has created nuisance and caused traffic hindrances in their free use, ultimately affecting their businesses. The court observed that even 12 years after the apex court had asked for taking steps for the welfare of street vendors, there had been an attempt, through this petition, to evict vendors who have been admittedly carrying out vending since long in the area in question. The court was also informed that Manimajra was a village earlier. It now has a local market where street vendors have been selling food items for long. 'Before we close the case, we are of the firm view that street vendors and their families, who are depositing fee with the MC for the certificate being given to them for vending, also need to be provided some social protection. The amount so recovered by the MC should, therefore, be used for their benefits alone and should be kept in a separate budget head, as a suitable insurance for them, including medical facilities, should be provided by the MC and rules in this regard should be framed,' the court observed. The court added that it has alsonoticed that the benefits of the Street Vending Act, which were meant for genuine street vendors, are being 'misused by a certain set of persons'. Moreover, wrongful means are being adopted to get names lodged in survey registers for illegally getting sites meant for hawkers. Such misuse of law deserves to be dealt with an iron hand and a will to execute the provision of law with integrity and dutifully is required at the hands of authorities. 'We cannot close our eyes to the fact that there is an elite class still following the Britishers, who looks down upon their own countrymen doing small businesses and treats them as if they are mafias as stated in the present petition, or encroachers, who cause chaos in commercial hubs,' it remarked, adding that the judiciary has to rise above 'Such form of impressions, which such elite class carries'. 'Gone are the days when we had British judges, sitting in courts looking at justice to be delivered for people who rule. We are a country, who are now having homogenous class of Indians. A tribal lady from a remote village can now be the President of India and a worker from the grass root level may reach up to the highest echelons of the administration,' the court said.
The Print
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
HC quashes 2019 notification of giving 10 marks under socio-economic criteria for Haryana govt jobs
The division bench of justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I Mehta held the state government's June 11, 2019 notification to be in violation of Articles of 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Chandigarh, May 24 (PTI) The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the Haryana government's 2019 notification which gave up to 10 bonus marks to candidates under the 'socio-economic criteria' in the recruitment for government jobs. As per the 2019 notification of the state government, up to 10 marks were to be allotted to candidates under the socio-economic criterion. Maximum five marks were given to a candidate who does not have any family member in a government job and five additional marks were given if an applicant is a widow or belongs to nomadic tribes. 'We find that the selection process has been tainted on account of 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. 'By carving out an artificial class of applicants who would be entitled to five bonus marks (up to 10), 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 by any state,' said the bench in its May 22 order. The court found that the state conducted the entire selection in a 'wholly slipshod manner'. 'The 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. It is also noticed that no data was collected before laying down such socio-economic criteria. 'We further find 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 per cent ceiling limit,' said the order while citing the Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India case. The court stated, 'What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly'. The bench applied the theory of 'no fault' with regard to candidates who would be ousted from the merit list, though they had cleared the written examination and have been working for quite a long time now. 'We also notice that the 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 in the advertisement. 'Although, we have not approved the economic criteria adopted vide notification dated 11.06.2019, such appointments ought not be made to suffer,' stated the bench. 'We, therefore, save their appointments with a condition that they would have no claim for seniority in terms of the advertisement of 2019. 'We, therefore, find that notification dated 11.06.2019 to be in violation of Articles of 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same is accordingly declared ultra vires and liable to be quashed and set aside,' it said. The court further directed that 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 posts concerned advertised in 2019. PTI CHS VSD MNK MNK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Indian Express
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
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.
