Published: 24th Nov, 2023
Context:
Punjab and Haryana HC quashed a law that provided 75 per cent reservation in private jobs to residents of the state.
Reasons Given by HC
- Underlining that a government cannot discriminate against individuals merely because they do not belong to a particular state.
- The HC declared the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 unconstitutional, striking down the provision that mandated 75% reservation in private jobs for Haryana residents.
- Constitutional Infringement:
- The High Court emphasized that the law violated Part III of the Constitution, which safeguards fundamental rights.
- The provision was deemed ultra vires and ineffective from its inception.
- Discrimination Concerns:
- The bench underscored that a government cannot discriminate based on an individual's state of origin.
- Private employers were deemed free to recruit from the open market, especially for roles paying less than Rs 30,000 per month.
- State Intervention Limits:
- The court argued that the State cannot dictate private employers' hiring practices contrary to constitutional principles.
- It highlighted the impracticality of restricting a builder from employing skilled workers based on their regional expertise.
- Intrusion into Fundamental Rights:
- Petitions challenging the law argued that it infringed on the fundamental rights of private employers under Article 19 of the Constitution.
- The law was criticized for creating division among citizens based on their domicile.
- Concept of Common Citizenship:
- The court noted that the law created an undesirable division among citizens, contrary to the constitutional concept of common citizenship.
- It rejected the argument that unemployment among local youth justified such classification.
Government's Defense:
- The Haryana government contended that the law did not discriminate in central or state government employment or in organizations owned by them.
- It was the aim of the government that the Haryana youth get jobs in newly formed industries.
- It asserted that while birthplace-based reservation might violate constitutional provisions, employment based on domicile adheres to Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
- The government claimed that unemployed local youth constituted a distinct class, justifying their preferential treatment in private sector employment.
Analysis and Implications:
- The court's ruling sets a precedent against regional discrimination in employment and reinforces the constitutional right of private entities to conduct their affairs without undue interference.
- It highlights the importance of upholding the principles of common citizenship and individual rights over region-based preferences.
- The decision could have broader implications for similar laws in other states and promotes a more egalitarian approach to employment practices.
Conclusion
The High Court's decision strikes down a law deemed violative of constitutional principles, reinforcing the foundational tenets of equality and non-discrimination. This ruling is expected to shape future legal discourse on the balance between regional considerations and individual rights in employment matters.
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
