DENIED JOB DESPITE FULL MARKS IN EXAM, Haryana WOMAN MOVE Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh.
In this post we will read about the woman moving to HC as she was denied despite full marks scored by her in exams.
- A woman from Haryana’s Karnal district, who failed to get selected for the post of junior system engineer (JSE) in one of the powers of the state, has moved the Punjab and Haryana high court alleging violation of the constitutional right to equality as she was denied a job even after securing full marks in the competitive examination.
- Taking cognizance of her plea, the HC on Friday issued notice to the Haryana government, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) and the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) seeking a reply on the issue.
- The matter reached the HC in the wake of a petition filed by Monika Raman, a resident of Bazida Jattan village in Karnal district. In her plea, the HSSC had advertised for appointment to 146 JSE posts in DHBVN and had prescribed the requisite qualifications.
- As per its criteria for selection, an examination was to be held for 90 marks and10 marks would be awarded to candidates based on socio-economic criteria. On February 27, the woman appeared for the written examination conducted online and secured 90 out of the total 90 marks in the written examination and was shortlisted for the scrutiny of documents. However, she was shocked to see the final selection list, declared on April 22, 2021, without her name on it.
- Despite scoring 100% marks in the written examination, the petitioner was not selected for the government job.
100% Marks No Guarantee
Candidates with lower marks got selected, the petitioner came to know that she was not selected because the cut-off marks for the general category candidates were 93 marks and the waiting list for the general category was 92 marks.
The petitioner lost out due to the socioeconomic criteria adopted by the Haryana government. Under this criteria, up to 10 additional marks are granted to candidates who are widows, orphans, or if any member of their family does not have a government job and those belong to de-notified tribes, or nomads who are not entitled to reservation under SC or BC categories in the state.
In this case, candidates who scored lower marks, between 84 to 89, in the written examination, were selected as they got extra marks under the socio-economic criteria.
Aggrieved from her rejection, the petitioner approached the HC and sought directions to quash the notification dated June 11, 2019, to the extent vide which the meritorious candidates have not been selected due to benefit of marks given under the socio-economic criteria. Directions have also been sought to quash the result dated April 22, 2021, declared for the posts of JSE in DHBVN Haryana.
Relief Sought by Petitioner
The petitioner also urged the high court to consider her for selection to the post of JSE in DHBVN as a meritorious candidate in the interest of justice. The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Rajender Singh Malik argued that the Haryana government’s notification providing reservation on socio-economic criteria stipulated 100% reservation, which is against the constitutional provisions.
The counsel submitted that reservation or benefits of socioeconomic criteria beyond 50% quota have already been given to the selected candidates. He also submitted that it is settled law that in the general category, pure merit of selection should be considered.
Otherwise, there is no meaning of general category, if the reservation being used as socio-economic criteria, then meritorious candidates cannot be selected in the aforesaid selection.
Referring to the verdicts passed by the Supreme Court in the cases titled, Indra Sawhney and M Nagaraj versus Union of India, the counsel told the HC that it has been held by the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court that the state cannot obliterate the constitutional requirement of ceiling limit of 50% reservation in jobs. It was held that if the ceiling limit of 50% is breached, the structure of quality and equality in the Article 16 of the Constitution would collapse. So, the Haryana government has ignored the judgment while making the parameters of the socio-economic criteria, the counsel argued.
For case specific advice, please contact Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh best top expert lawyers.
More on 99888-17966.