HC quashes 2019 notification of giving 10 marks under socio-economic criteria for Haryana govt jobs
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
26 minutes ago
- The Print
Marriages sacrosanct to Hindus are at stake due to trivial issues between couples: HC
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man and his family members seeking to quash a dowry harassment case registered against them by his estranged wife in December 2023. The Nagpur bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and M M Nerlikar, in an order dated July 8, held that in matrimonial disputes, if a reunion is not possible, the same should be ended immediately to ensure the lives of the parties involved are not ruined. Mumbai, Jul 14 (PTI) Marriages considered sacrosanct by Hindus are at stake now because of small and trivial issues between couples, the Bombay High Court remarked while quashing a dowry harassment case against a man and his family members. The estranged couple informed the court that they had settled their dispute and had been granted a divorce by mutual consent. The woman informed the court that she had no objection if the case was quashed, as she wished to move on with her life. The court, while quashing the case, said though the provisions pertaining to dowry harassment and unnatural sex of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, to secure the ends of justice, courts can quash the proceedings. The court stated that considering the recent trend of filing cases against many persons from the husband's side, it has become imperative to look into matrimonial disputes from a different angle. If the parties want to settle their disputes amicably and live peacefully, it is the court's duty to encourage the same, it held. 'Marital discord has nowadays become a menace in the society due to various factors. Small issues between a couple spoil their entire life, and marriage, which is sacrosanct in Hindus, is at stake,' the court said. Marriages are not merely a social contract but a spiritual union that binds two souls together, it said. The court further noted that the legislation with an intent to improve marital relationships enacted several Acts, but people frequently misuse them, resulting in mental and physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss and irreversible harm to family members and children. PTI SP ARU This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Print
26 minutes ago
- The Print
Anti-sacrilege bill likely to tabled in Punjab Assembly
The draft bill may propose life imprisonment for sacrilege acts against religious scriptures, sources said. Ahead of the third day of the special session of the state assembly, a cabinet meeting was held here in which the anti-sacrilege bill was given nod by the council of ministers, the sources said. Chandigarh, Jul 14 (PTI) A draft bill seeking stricter punishment for acts of sacrilege is likely to be introduced in the Punjab Assembly on Monday, sources said. There may also be a provision for setting up special courts to deal with cases pertaining to desecration of scriptures. There will be no parole for those guilty of sacrilege acts, they further said. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had earlier said the state government would seek the opinion of all stakeholders and religious bodies for the proposed legislation, indicating it would not be enacted immediately. 'We are drafting it. A law is going to be enacted. But for this, we will talk to stakeholders, religious organisations. We will present the draft legislation (in the assembly). 'But for the final draft, we will require time. After presenting it in the Vidhan Sabha, we will seek public opinion,' he had said. 'We will speak to religious bodies about how the law should be. We will take the (draft) bill to the public to seek their opinion for any amendments,' he had then said. Mann had said the government would consult leading legal experts to ensure that a robust state legislation is enacted – one that prevents offenders from evading strict consequences, including the possibility of capital punishment for such heinous crimes. Reaffirming his government's commitment to justice, Mann had stated that every person involved in these sacrilegious acts, either directly or indirectly, would face exemplary punishment. Mann had highlighted that while the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) provides clear provisions regarding religious places, it remains silent on holy 'granths'. He had also said that as the subject falls under the concurrent list, the state has the authority to enact such legislation, and legal opinions would be sought accordingly. It is not the first time that a law was being brought in the state for stricter punishment for perpetrators of sacrilege acts. In 2016, the then SAD-BJP government brought in the IPC (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2016 and CrPC (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2016 recommending life sentence for sacrilege acts against Guru Granth Sahib. The Centre later returned the bill, saying all religions should be treated equally given the secular nature of the Constitution. In 2018, the Amarinder Singh government had passed two bills –the Indian Penal Code (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2018′, and 'the Code of Criminal Procedure (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2018', which stipulated a punishment of up to life imprisonment for injury, damage or sacrilege to Guru Granth Sahib, Bhagavad Gita, Quran and the Bible. However, the two Bills did not get the President's assent. Acts of sacrilege against religious scriptures has been an emotive issue in Punjab and there has been a demand from various quarters for stringent punishment for the acts of sacrilege against religious texts. The incident related to the theft of a 'bir' (copy) of Guru Ganth Sahib from Burj Jawahar Singh Wala gurdwara, putting up handwritten sacrilegious posters in Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala and torn pages of the holy book found scattered at Bargari, had taken place in Bargari in Faridkot in 2015. These incidents had led to anti-sacrilege protests in Faridkot. In the police firing at anti-sacrilege protesters in October 2015, two persons were killed in Behbal Kalan while some persons were injured at Kotkapura in Faridkot. PTI CHS VSD DV DV This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
The Print
28 minutes ago
- The Print
No legal, valid ‘citizenship' document that's issued—how it puts big question mark on ECI's Bihar exercise
The special intensive revision in Bihar involves an indicative list of 11 documents provided by the ECI to be submitted by eligible voters. Several petitioners before the Supreme Court have objected to the non-inclusion of documents like Aadhaar and voter ID in the list of acceptable documents. The last such intensive revision was carried out in the state in 2003. In its order directing the revision last month, the ECI had cited Article 326 of the Constitution, according to which elections to the Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. This provision says, 'Every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age…shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.' New Delhi: The Election Commission of India's special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar has raised several questions over the scope of the exercise, and the impact that it may have on the citizens' right to vote. While the petitions challenging the ECI's revision were being heard by the apex court Thursday, the poll body asserted that Aadhaar cannot be accepted as a proof of citizenship. Courts have, in the past, also ruled the same with respect to Aadhaar. So, is there a specific document issued under Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically certifying Indian citizenship? Experts say there isn't. Former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa told ThePrint that there is no clear document issued under the Citizenship Act, certifying that a person is a citizen. This means that while there are documents like the passport, which may serve as proof of a person being an Indian citizen, there isn't a document certifying such citizenship exclusively under the 1955 law. A lawyer familiar with the petitions challenging the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar explained, 'All the documents that they are asking for are going to show only the date and place of birth. Through that, you may extrapolate and say—okay, you're a citizen. But none of the documents, except the passport, is proof of citizenship. None of the others are indicative of citizenship at all.' The lawyer further told ThePrint that there is no document in India, which is a proof of citizenship per se, like a national citizenship card. 'The only document which is proof of citizenship in that sense is the passport, and the proof of citizenship in passport is ancillary to its main purpose, which is that it is a travel document for an Indian citizenship. And because it is such a travel document only for Indian citizens, it is considered a proof of citizenship, but it is not per se a proof only of citizenship.' Also Read: SC invokes 'document starvation' to suggest EC accept Aadhaar for special roll revision in Bihar What is a 'citizenship' proof? Citizenship in India is determined by the Citizenship Act, 1955, which lists down different methods of acquiring Indian citizenship—by birth, by descent, by registration, and by naturalisation. While citizenship by descent is for a person born outside India, citizenship by registration is for people including those of Indian origin, or those married to an Indian citizen. Citizenship by naturalisation is for foreigners. 'There is nothing called a 'citizenship certificate' for those who are citizens of India since the commencement of the Constitution or their descendants. There is also no stand-alone document for Indian citizens to prove their citizenship,' Guwahati-based lawyer Aman Wadud, who has worked on citizenship cases, told ThePrint. 'The group of people who have 'citizenship certificate' are those who get Indian citizenship by naturalisation, by registration, by descent, and those who have been granted citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.' The 1955 Act talks about such a certificate only in cases of citizenship by descent, naturalisation and registration. As for the documents required, the Citizenship Rules, 2009 only talk about specific applications for registration under Sections 4 (descent), 5 (registration) and 6 (naturalisation). No such specific application is required to be submitted in case of citizenship by birth. 'Not citizenship, only identity' That most of the documents on the list provided by the ECI may not be proof of citizenship was highlighted by the Supreme Court Thursday as well. In case of Bihar, the 11 acceptable documents listed by the ECI are birth certificate, passport, matriculation certification, permanent residence certificate issued by a state authority, forest rights certificate, caste certificate, National Register of Citizens or NRC (wherever it exists), family register prepared by state/local authorities, any land/house allotment certificate by the government, any identity card or pension payment order issued to a regular employee or pensioner of central government/state government/PSU, or any such identity card/certificate/document issued by the government/local authorities/banks/post office/LIC/PSUs prior to 1 July, 1987. During the hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the ECI, assured the court that the only purpose behind the exercise was to ensure that everyone who was eligible is on the electoral roll, and that it was looking at the aspects of citizenship and age. However, the court immediately pointed out, 'All the documents you have listed are related to identity.' Justice Joymalya Bagchi was quoted as saying, 'Why citizenship? Only identity. None of these illustrative documents that you listed or by themselves proof of citizenship.' This is why the petitioners have challenged the selection of documents by the ECI, alleging that the exercise is 'arbitrary, because the inclusions and the potential exclusion of documents do not make sense from the perspective of what they claim they are trying to do, that is to authenticate citizenship', the lawyer quoted earlier asserted, speaking to ThePrint. The Aadhaar dichotomy There seems to be a dichotomy between the ECI's resistance towards accepting Aadhaar for the revision in Bihar, and its past actions. ECI's manual on electoral rolls issued in March 2023 mentions the Aadhaar as an acceptable document to be attached with Form 6, the official application form used for new voter registration, or for those voters who may be shifting their residence from one constituency to another. It says that Aadhaar may be furnished, both as proof of age and proof of ordinary residence. Back in 2015, the commission had launched a nationwide comprehensive programme, National Electoral Roll Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP) with an objective of bringing an 'error-free and authenticated electoral roll' by linking EPIC (Electoral Photo Identity Card) data of electors with Aadhaar number, mobile number and e-mail. However, on 11 August that year, the Supreme Court passed an interim order in the petitions challenging the Aadhaar scheme, asserting that the production of an Aadhaar card would not be mandatory for obtaining any benefits, and that it would not be used for any purpose other than the PDS and LPG distribution schemes. Post this order, the poll body had halted its Aadhaar programme, directing its Electoral Officers to suspend all activities to collect and feed Aadhaar numbers of voters. 'Henceforth, no more collection of Aadhaar numbers from electors or feeding/seeding of collected Aadhaar data shall be done by any election authority or official connected with NERPAP,' the commission's directive had reportedly read. In 2021, on the ECI's recommendation, the government had amended the Representation of People Act, 1950, introducing a new form 6B to collect Aadhaar numbers from existing electors on voluntary basis for authentication of his entries in the electoral roll. Also Read: Congress, TMC oppose EC's 'special intensive revision' of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar What is ECI's mandate? The revision exercise in Bihar has triggered concerns over the commission indirectly entering the domain of determining citizenship of citizens through the revision of voter rolls. During the latest hearing in the top court in the case, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Kumar Jha, asserted that it is only the Government of India that can contest a person's citizenship, and not a 'small officer of the EC'. 'The Supreme Court has said in many cases that it is not the remit of the Election Commission to go into the citizenship aspect. That is creating a little problem here,' Former Lok Sabha secretary general and Constitutional expert P.D.T. Achary told ThePrint. 'The job of preparing or revising the voters list is with the ECI. When the ECI is preparing the list, the question is whether they have the power to go into the question of citizenship. How will they decide whether a person is a citizen of India or not? What are the guidelines or the documents which the ECI can ask for, that is not clear at all.' Achary pointed out that the Representation of Peoples Act does not deal with this aspect at all. 'That means, the Election Commission does not have the remit to decide this question, because it can only be decided by the Home Ministry, which administers the Citizenship Act,' he said. 'ECI is thinking about this only because Article 326 stipulates citizenship as one of the conditions of eligibility, and its question is genuine. But I don't know why they are thinking about it now, when all these years they have not been doing it. There is a presumption that a person is a citizen.' The inclusions and exclusions The 1995 Citizenship Act is administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is tasked with framing the rules under the law and overseeing its implementation. During the hearing Thursday, when advocate Dwivedi asserted that Aadhaar isn't proof of citizenship, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia shot back saying, 'But citizenship is an issue to be determined not by the Election Commission of India, but by the MHA.' Former EC Lavasa also points out that it is the MHA which is tasked with determining citizenship under the 1955 law. 'Every Act has its own administrative mechanism. That administrative mechanism is supposed to carry out the functions that it is responsible for,' he told ThePrint. Apart from exclusion of Aadhaar, Achary is also troubled by the fact that the commission isn't accepting voter ID cards as well. 'That is a very strange position to take, that you have given the voter identity card, which is given to a person who is enrolled as a voter, and that voter's list was prepared under the law and the Constitution. What question remains after that? What is the value of this document?' he remarked. Besides, the petitions filed by the top court point to several issues that emerge from each of the 11 documents. For instance, Rajya Sabha MP Jha's petition cites various government surveys and data to highlight that a negligible part of Bihar's population holds several of these documents, including birth certificate, passport, permanent residence certificate, and identity card/pension payment order issued to regular government employees. It also points out that at least two in this list—NRC and family register—do not apply to Bihar. How have revisions been done before? Intensive revisions have taken place ever since the first general elections in the country. For instance, the preparation of first electoral rolls began in 1947, well before the 1950 Act, or the establishment of the ECI. However, it was noticed that in the rolls used for the first elections, several names of women electors had to be deleted because they were enrolled as 'mother of' or 'wife of', instead of their proper names. To fix this, after the first election in 1952, the ECI had directed revision of electoral rolls in 1/5th of each state annually from 1952 to 1956 to finish the exercise before the Lok Sabha polls in 1957, and 1/3rd of each state annually from 1957 to 1961 to complete the exercise before the 1962 polls. Post this, the commission had said that summary revisions should be sufficient in 1962 and 1964, while intensive revision was conducted once again in 1965 in 40 percent of the country, and in 1966 in the remaining 60 percent areas. Lavasa explained that the approach in earlier intensive revision exercises was 'very simple'. 'In case of intensive revision, it was done as a fresh exercise. During house-to-house verification, the head of the family gave the names of the people who lived in the same house. The ERO would then put out a draft roll, and the expectation was that if a person had given false information, somebody would object to it,' he said. In the normal course also, if someone objects to a person's eligibility as a voter, it is on the objector to prove the claim that a voter is not eligible, unlike the current exercise in Bihar, where the burden of proof of citizenship has been placed on the already-enrolled voters. However, Lavasa asserted, the old 2003 order directing intensive revision should be made available to check how that exercise had been undertaken. 'Till that notification is available, it is difficult to say with certainty how it was done in 2003.' (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: 'Arbitrary, to be replicated in Bengal.' What pleas by ADR, Mahua challenging EC's Bihar exercise say
