Haryana government’s efforts to get the court stay vacated on its decision to grant reservation to Jats and five other communities, under the newly created Backward Class ‘C’ category, proved futile even Monday – with the vacation bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing to hear the case and ordering it to be heard on July 4 by the regular bench when the latter returns from summer break.
As a bunch of four petitions, including the main case filed by Bhiwani resident Murari Lal Gupta, came up for hearing before the vacation bench comprising Justices M Jeyapaul and HS Sidhu, Justice Jeyapaul said, “Let the matter be taken up on July 4 by the regular bench.”
However, arguing for the Haryana government, senior Supreme Court advocate and former member of Parliament from Rajasthan, Jagdeep Dhankar, submitted, “This matter is too important an issue to be adjourned repeatedly. Our legislation has been stayed as the court granted ex-parte stay (on May 26).”
- High Court issues directions on release of prisoners under parole
- SC/ST quota in govt promotions: Supreme Court to hear plea on August 3
- Property details of IAS, IPS officers: Cases still pending in HC, info panel, files weeded out
- Haryana lawyer gets a month in jail for criticising HC judge on Facebook
- Haryana HC judge recuses from hearing quota case
- Punjab and Haryana HC won’t vacate stay on quota for Jats, others
Putting his averments strongly, Dhankar, assisted by additional advocate general Deepak Balyan, said, “At stake is 20,000 recruitment posts and 40,000 admissions. Am I not entitled to a hearing?”
He argued that considering the urgency of the matter, the regular bench had on June 2 posted the state government’s application for vacation of stay for hearing on June 6.
“But thereafter the case got adjourned on June 6, June 13 and June 17,” Dhankar said, hinting that the agitation by various organisations across the state might aggravate as per news reports.
Advocate RS Kundu, appearing for Jat Mahasabha, argued that normally admissions and recruitment interviews are allowed by the courts subject to the outcome of the petitions pending before the courts and, in this case, the court can follow the same process.
Otherwise, he said, one year of students would be spoiled. Countering, petitioner Gupta’s advocate Mukesh Verma submitted that there was no urgency in the matter as the court stay in the case was in place since July last year.