Chandigarh:

The Punjab and Haryana High Friday held as unconstitutional the socioeconomic criteria prescribed by the Haryana government to grant additional marks to certain classes of candidates in state government jobs, said a counsel of one of the petitioners.

“The socioeconomic criteria has been held as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 15, 16. This was pronounced in the court today by a division bench,” said Sarthak Gupta, the counsel for one of the petitioners.

The practice of giving extra marks or bonus marks has been declared as unconstitutional, Gupta said.

The court order came on a bunch of petitions which had challenged the socioeconomic criteria. Petitions have been allowed in which this criteria had been challenged, he said.

He said a detailed order in the matter was yet to be released.

He said the lead petitioner in the matter was Arpit Gahlawat while some more had filed petitions later.

“There is a Haryana government policy for government recruitments for Group ‘C’, ‘D’ category jobs, under which they used to give some extra marks, weightage, that has been set aside.

“In some recruitments, it was five marks weightage, in some it was 20. That policy has been declared unconstitutional,” he said.

The Haryana government had introduced the socioeconomic criteria a few years back, aiming to provide additional marks to certain classes of candidates including those who don’t have any family member in government job, are state-domiciled and their family income does not exceed Rs 1.80 lakh per annum.

According to one of the petitioners, the said socioeconomic criteria is arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal.

This is for the reasons, inter alia, that grant of additional marks to a certain class excluding the others is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16, the petitioner submitted.

The grant of additional marks to a certain class is in derogation of the settled law that for appointing persons to posts in public services through direct recruitment the criterion has to be pure merit, the petitioner had contended.

The criteria further discriminates on the basis of domicile and descent which are prohibited markers under Article 162 of Constitution, the petitioner had submitted.

There is no rationale for the grant of such additional marks to a certain class when reservations for the EWS as well as the socially backward classes such as Scheduled Castes SC and Backward Classes BC are already provided for, he had contended.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)