'Unconstitutional': High Court sets aside Haryana law providing 75 per cent quota in private sector jobs

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 17

Two years after it was notified, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday declared Haryana law providing 75 per cent quota in private sector jobs as “unconstitutional and violative of the Constitution of India”. In a major embarrassment for the State, the Bench also declared the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, ultravires the Constitution of India before making it clear that was “ineffective from the date it came into force”.

State overstepped its authority

In its 83-page judgment, the Bench of Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan was of the opinion that the State overstepped its authority by legislating on private employment. It was beyond the State’s purview to legislate on the issue and restrict the private employer from recruiting people from the open market for the category of employees receiving less than Rs 30,000 per month.

The Bench also made it clear that there was a bar mandated under the Constitution regarding discrimination to citizens of the country relating to employment on the basis of their places of birth and residence and to make them ineligible or discriminated against in respect of the employment to the State

Laissez-faire principles

The Bench underscored the principle of laissez-faire by asserting: “The State cannot direct the private employers to do what has been forbidden to do under the Constitution of India. It cannot, as such, discriminate against the individuals on account of the fact that they do not belong to a certain State and have a negative discrimination against other citizens of the country… It is not for the State to direct the private employer whom it has to employee keeping in view the principles of laissez faire that “the lesser it governs, the better itself.”

Overreaching effects

The Bench also ruled that the restrictions imposed in the statute have far-reaching effect and could not be held to be reasonable in any manner. Referring further to the bar under the Constitution, the Bench added it did not see any reason how the State could force a private employer to employ a local candidate as it would lead to a large-scale “similar State enactments, providing similar protection for their residents and putting up artificial walls throughout the country, which the framers of the Constitution had never envisaged”.

Unconstitutional mandate:

*The Act cannot be said to be reasonable in any manner. It was directing the employers to violate the constitutional provisions.

*Restrictions imposed upon all types of private employers are gross to the extent that a person’s right to carry on occupation, trade or business is grossly impaired under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

*The requirement to register within three months on the designated portal any employee being paid less than Rs 30, 000 per month up to 75 per cent is violative of the fundamental rights protected under the Constitution of India.

*The requirement of submitting quarterly reports and the power of the authorised officer to call for records and to inspect premises for examining the records, registers and documents by just giving a day’s prior notice are conditions which can be termed as the “Inspector Raj” of the State.

*The private employer has been “put under the anvil of the State” as to whom to employ. The bar on challenge the legal proceedings in any court against an authorized officer or designated officer further ties the employer’s hands.

*The State continues to exercise absolute control over a private employer directing it to do which itself is forbidden for public employment.