HC strikes down Haryana’s bonus marks policy as unconstitutional

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed and set aside the state of Haryana’s June 2019 notification awarding up to 10 bonus marks for “socio-economic criteria and experience” in recruitments after holding it to be in violation of Articles of 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. “The same is accordingly declared ultra vires,” the bench asserted.

The court held that the state breached the 50 per cent ceiling on total reservations laid down in Indira Sawhney by layering bonus marks atop the existing EWS and backward-class reservations. “Once 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 as laid down in Indira Sawhney versus the Union of India and others, and recognised by the Constitution framers while making amendment to Article 16 (4) (b). This court finds that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly,” the bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta asserted.

The court also ruled that the notification of granting the bonus marks for socio-economic criteria and experience was not based on any rules framed under the proviso to Article 309. “No data was collected before laying down such a socio-economic criterion,” the bench added.

The court added the selection process had been ‘tainted’ on account of the 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,” the court added.

Referring to one of the petitions, the bench added Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 146 Junior System Engineer posts in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam in June 2019. The recruitment scheme allotted 90 marks for a written test and up to 10 bonus marks based on socio-economic and experience criteria.

The bench, at the same time, applied the “no-fault” doctrine to candidates who had cleared the written examination and had been working for quite a long time. “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 laid down in the advertisement. Although, we have not approved the socio economic criteria adopted vide notification dated June 11, 2019, such appointees ought not be made to suffer,” the court added.

The bench added all appointees would hold their posts without any claim to seniority. “We save their appointments with a condition that they would have no claim for seniority in terms of the advertisement of 2019.”

The petitioners were represented by counsel Rahul Makkar, Sarthak Gupta, RS Malik, SS Nain, Chirag Kundu, Wazir Singh, Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Mazlish Khan, RS Saroha, and Mandeep Singh Kundu.