CHANDIGARH, May 24 — The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a 2019 Haryana government notification that granted 10 additional marks based on socio-economic criteria in recruitment for Group B and C posts, declaring the move unconstitutional and in violation of equal opportunity principles.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta ruled that the policy created an “artificial class” of applicants eligible for bonus marks, thus breaching Article 16 of the Constitution.
“By carving out artificial class of applicants, who would be entitled to 5 bonus marks, the principles enshrined under Article 16 would stand violated,” the bench observed. “No other reservation except the one as available under Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution can be laid down by any state.”
The now-scrapped policy had reserved 90 marks for the written exam and allotted an additional 10 marks based on socio-economic factors. These included five marks for candidates without any regular government employee in the family, widows or children of deceased parents who died young, and members of nomadic tribes.
Petitions challenging the policy were filed in 2021, when multiple recruitment drives were underway. One key case involved 146 posts of junior system engineers in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN), lawyers involved in the matter said.
The court has directed the Haryana government to revise and republish the merit lists within three months. Those who qualify under the new criteria will be appointed, while current appointees who fall outside the new merit list will either be adjusted against future vacancies or allowed to continue on an ad hoc basis.
“They will be allowed to continue against future posts… If no vacancies are available, they will be allowed to continue on ad hoc basis,” the court said, noting such individuals should not suffer “for no fault of theirs.”
The state had defended the policy as a step toward social equity, arguing that collective welfare outweighed individual claims. However, the court held that such classifications must align with constitutional provisions and cannot create new categories of reservation.
