HC quashes Haryana law on 75% quota in pvt jobs to residents: Discriminatory

The bench, which was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the law, said the legislation will become “ineffective from the date it came into force”.

Deputy Chief Minister Dushyant Chautala said: “We will move the Supreme Court and file an SLP after thoroughly examining the High Court order.”

Praveen Attrey, media secretary to Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, told The Indian Express: “It was the aim of the government that the Haryana youth get jobs in newly formed industries. Now, the Hon’ble High Court’s order has come but we have not received it. Once we get the detailed order of the court, we will study it and decide the next course of action.”

In its order, the bench said it is beyond the purview of the State to restrict a private employer from recruiting from the open market for the category of employees who were receiving less than Rs 30,000 per month.

“Keeping in view the principles laid down by the apex court itself on the principles of morality, 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,” the bench said.

“The private employer being a builder, for example, raising a multi-storeyed complex, cannot be asked not to employ a person who is skilled in the work of installation of wood work who might come from a particular area of the country i.e. Kashmir; where this skill has been enhanced, whereas from another part of the country, labour which is more skilled in setting up the steel frames and building are found i.e. Punjab; whereas similar persons with different skills who would be more proficient in just executing the civil work i.e. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar,” it said.

Petitioners MT Industrial Association and others had challenged the law saying that it creates an unprecedented intrusion by the state government into the fundamental rights of private employers to carry on their business and trade as provided under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The petitioners through their counsel, Senior Advocate Anupam Gupta with Advocates Bhavnik Mehta, Gautam Pathania, Sukhpal Singh and Tushar Sharma, averred that a wedge is sought to be created between persons domiciled in different states by the statute in question, which is contrary to the concept of common citizenship provided in the Constitution.

The Haryana government contended that the Act did not discriminate regarding employment under the central or state governments or any other organisation owned by them. It also argued that reservation on the basis of place of birth would violate provisions of the Constitution but employment on the basis of domicile would not offend Article 15(1) of the Constitution. It said unemployed local youth were a distinct class and reasonable classification could be made of this particular class for the purpose of providing 75 per cent employment in private sectors.