By Shazia Siddiqui

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (SSC), which sought to challenge the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to invalidate a 2022 rule from the Haryana Government. This rule granted an additional five percent marks to Haryana domiciles for socio-economic criteria in the recruitment process for Group C and Group D posts.

The case stemmed from the High Court’s scrutiny of the Haryana Government’s 2022 policy, which aimed to provide preferential treatment in the form of extra marks to certain candidates. These candidates included those from families without government employment, those with a gross annual family income below 1.8 lakh rupees, widows, and orphans. The policy also favored candidates from denotified or nomadic tribes of Haryana and awarded additional marks for relevant work experience within government entities.

The High Court had determined that this bonus marks policy lacked proper statutory backing and was not grounded in adequate empirical data. The court argued that existing reservation systems for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and socially backward classes already provided substantial socio-economic support. Introducing additional criteria for bonus marks, without a clear and legally sound framework, was seen as potentially breaching the established 50% reservation ceiling.

The High Court’s decision to quash the policy was based on several key observations. It noted that the policy was implemented without any formal rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, which governs public employment regulations. Moreover, the court criticized the Haryana Government for not conducting a thorough data-driven analysis before instituting such socio-economic criteria. The High Court emphasized that once statutory reservations are in place, further extending benefits under socio-economic grounds must be carefully justified to avoid exceeding the reservation limits.

Additionally, the High Court ordered the reconducting of the written examinations for the affected posts. It allowed candidates who had already been appointed based on the now-invalidated results to participate in the new selection process. However, if they did not succeed in the fresh evaluations, their current appointments would be terminated. This measure aimed to correct the flawed implementation of the policy without unfairly stripping the appointees of their jobs prematurely.

Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment. The apex court concurred with the High Court’s findings that the policy was both legally and procedurally unsound. A significant point of contention was the perceived unfairness of awarding extra marks purely on socio-economic grounds, potentially disadvantaging other candidates of equal merit.

The Supreme Court questioned the justification of such a populist measure, where candidates could gain an unfair advantage over equally qualified peers based on arbitrary socio-economic criteria. The court highlighted the importance of meritocracy and fair competition in public employment processes, where all candidates should be evaluated on a level playing field.

Defending the policy, the SSC argued that the rule aimed to provide opportunities for those deprived of secure public employment, suggesting that such measures were crucial for local-level employment in Group C and Group D posts. The SSC pointed to previous judicial approvals of similar policies as a basis for their argument.

However, the Supreme Court found these justifications inadequate. It emphasized that any socio-economic policy must be rooted in robust legal frameworks and supported by comprehensive data to ensure they do not unjustly disadvantage other deserving candidates. The court’s decision reinforced the necessity of adhering to legal principles and maintaining fairness in recruitment processes.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the SSC’s petition, reaffirming the High Court’s decision to nullify the Haryana Government’s bonus marks policy. This judgment underscores the critical need for well-founded and equitable approaches in public employment practices. It highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that any deviations from merit-based selection are rigorously scrutinized and justified within the bounds of constitutional and legal principles.

Case Title: Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Ors. v. Sukriti Malik

Citation: SLP(C) No. 13275-13277/2024

Click here to read/Download the judgement