Assistant engineers’ recruitment: HC suspends clause giving 20 marks on basis of descent, Haryana domicile

The petition pointed out that as per the selection criteria, 20 marks out of 100 have been earmarked for “socio-economic criteria and experience”, making them inter alia dependent on descent or the domicile of the State of Haryana. Gahlawat, through counsel Sarthak Gupta, contended that the grant of such additional marks is nothing but a form of reservation.

Citing various judgements of the Supreme Court, Gahlawat contended that the marks earmarked for ‘socio-economic criteria and experience’ in the impugned advertisement cannot be sustained since they are to be given only to applicants having Haryana domicile and on basis of descent.

“Clause in the impugned advertisement dated December 20, 2022 dealing with ‘socio economic criteria and experience’ and providing 20 marks to Haryana domicile applicants or on basis of descent contained in Para 13(iv)(2) is suspended until further orders,” the high court said, adjourning the matter to July 24, 2023. A detailed order was made available on Friday.

The state counsel refuted the petitioner’s contentions and said that the 20 marks have been earmarked in the impugned advertisement since various requests were received from candidates who had applied for the earlier recruitment of assistant engineers through GATE-2019, which was cancelled on October 4, 2019.

The candidates had requested that they too should be considered in the present recruitment process. To give a fair and equal chance to those candidates who had applied in the earlier advertisement, it was proposed to consider the GATE-19 result and ‘socio economic criteria and experience’ as a special case and one-time measure, in addition to the requirement of GATE-2020 results in the present recruitment, the state counsel said. The weightage of marks is being given not only on the ground of domicile, he added.

After hearing the contentions, the bench said that a reading of a paragraph of the advertisement makes it prima facie evident that the concession of 20 marks is only being given to Haryana domicile residents or on basis of descent.

Citing Supreme Court judgments, the high court further asserted, “Having regard to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner, we prima facie agree with the contentions of the petitioner that confining of the benefit of socio-economic criteria and awarding 20 marks therefor on basis of descent or domicile in the State of Haryana is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.”