Chandigarh – In a landmark ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has struck down a controversial Haryana government notification issued on June 11, 2019, which awarded 10 additional marks to candidates in government recruitment processes based on socio-economic criteria and prior experience. The court found the policy to be in violation of the constitutional principles of equality and equal opportunity.
The verdict has triggered widespread uncertainty, with the potential to affect nearly 10,000 government jobs across the state. The decision came from a division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi Mehta, who delivered the ruling while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the policy.
Recruitment Results to Be Reviewed
According to Advocate Majlish Khan, who represented one of the petitioners, the court directed the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) to re-evaluate all recruitment processes where the additional 10 marks were awarded under the now-nullified criteria. The Commission has been given a three-month deadline to publish revised results, excluding the socio-economic preference marks.
Widespread Implications for Past Appointments
The court clarified that candidates who were previously selected and appointed but fail to make the cut in the revised merit list may face termination, following due legal procedure. The ruling affects all recruitments conducted after the 2019 notification.
One such petitioner, Monika Raman from Karnal district, had challenged the policy after she failed to secure a position as Junior System Engineer at the state-owned electricity distribution company, DHBVN, despite scoring a perfect 90 out of 90 in the written examination.
Merit Compromised by Bonus Points
Raman’s petition argued that the selection criteria unfairly disadvantaged candidates from the general category. Despite her top score, she was excluded from the final selection because the general category cut-off had risen to 93, with the waitlist closing at 92. Under the 2019 policy, candidates from certain socio-economic backgrounds—such as orphans, widows, or those from families with no government job holder—received 10 extra marks, giving them a significant advantage even if their actual test scores were lower.
For example, candidates scoring as low as 84 or 89 in the exam were selected ahead of Raman due to the bonus marks.
Thousands of Appointments Now Under Scrutiny
The ruling could impact high-profile recruitments across the state. In a notable example, 378 of 400 positions for Sub-Inspectors were filled by candidates who received socio-economic bonus marks. Similarly, 62 out of 65 posts for female Sub-Inspectors went to such candidates. A large portion of the 1,100 police constable posts also went to applicants who benefited from the additional points.
This judgment has now cast doubt over the legitimacy of these appointments, raising the possibility of large-scale terminations or reappointments depending on the revised merit lists.
A Blow to Government Hiring Policies
The court’s decision has stirred significant debate about fairness in public recruitment and the role of affirmative action. Legal experts say the judgment could serve as a precedent, prompting other states to reevaluate similar bonus points-based selection policies.
As of the time of writing, the official copy of the High Court’s judgment has yet to be released.
