Supreme Court Transfers Haryana Reservation Case to Itself for Uniform Adjudication

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sunil Rathee & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana & Ors., ruled on the transfer of a case concerning the legality of economic reservations in public employment in Haryana. The case revolved around whether the 10% reservation for economically backward persons in the general category violated the 50% ceiling limit established in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India.

The petitioners sought the transfer of their case from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the Supreme Court on the grounds that similar legal issues were already under review in appeals related to the Gujarat High Court’s ruling on economic reservations. The Supreme Court granted the transfer, emphasizing the need for uniform adjudication on a matter of general constitutional importance.

Background of the Case

In 2013, the State of Haryana issued a notification (No. 733 SW (1|)-2013, dated September 27, 2013) introducing a 10% reservation for economically backward persons in the general category in certain public employment fields. The policy was challenged by petitioners who were aspirants for the post of shift attendants under the Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s recruitment process initiated on February 20, 2016.

The petitioners argued that the 10% reservation exceeded the 50% ceiling on quotas established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and M. Nagraj vs. Union of India. They contended that without this reservation, they had a higher chance of securing employment.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioners, led by Sunil Rathee, argued:

• The reservation policy of 10% for economically backward persons violated the 50% ceiling set by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney.
• The recruitment process for shift attendants was unfairly skewed in favor of the EBPG category, reducing opportunities for general category candidates.
• Since the Supreme Court was already hearing appeals on similar economic reservation policies from Gujarat, their case should also be heard at the national level.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court had multiple similar petitions, and a uniform verdict was needed.

Arguments of the Respondent

The State of Haryana and its legal representatives countered:

• The 10% reservation was legally justified and in line with state policy objectives to uplift economically weaker sections.
• Petitioners had approached the High Court four years after the 2013 notification and only after the recruitment process had concluded.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court was competent to decide the matter, and there was no need to bypass it and approach the Supreme Court directly.
• The Gujarat High Court case was different as it dealt with an ordinance, whereas Haryana’s policy was enacted via a government notification.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

1. Need for Uniform Interpretation of Economic Reservations

The Court ruled that since similar appeals were pending in the Gujarat reservation case, it was appropriate to hear all cases together:

“The issue of economic reservations must be adjudicated in a consistent manner, ensuring that different High Courts do not reach conflicting conclusions.”

2. Applicability of the 50% Ceiling Rule

The Court reaffirmed the precedent set in Indra Sawhney but noted that the recent constitutional amendments introducing Articles 15(6) and 16(6) might impact the application of the 50% limit.

“The Haryana notification must be examined in the broader context of recent constitutional amendments that enable economic reservations.”

3. Status of Candidates Under the EBPG Category

Intervenors representing successful EBPG candidates sought to retain their appointments, arguing:

“Our selection was based on a valid reservation policy, and nullifying it now would be prejudicial to those who have already secured employment.”

4. Justification for Transfer Under Article 139A

The Supreme Court cited L.K. Venkat vs. Union of India, holding that:

“When a substantial question of general importance arises in multiple High Courts, it is within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to transfer the matter for uniform adjudication.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the transfer of the case from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to itself.
• Directed the High Court’s Registrar to send all records to the Supreme Court.
• Ordered that the case be heard alongside the pending appeals from Gujarat.
• Dismissed intervention applications but allowed affected candidates to present arguments when the case is heard on merits.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Supreme Court aims to ensure uniform interpretation of economic reservations across states.
• The 50% ceiling rule remains a crucial legal benchmark, but constitutional amendments introducing economic reservations require further analysis.
• Reservation policies must be scrutinized in light of their impact on general category aspirants.
• High Court cases involving similar legal issues may be transferred to the Supreme Court for consistency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Rathee & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. underscores the evolving legal landscape of economic reservations in India. By transferring the case to itself, the Court ensures that a uniform legal framework is applied to economic reservation policies across different states. The final ruling on the substantive issue of economic reservations will have significant implications for public employment and social justice policies in India.

Petitioner Name: Sunil Rathee & Ors..
Respondent Name: The State of Haryana & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 23-07-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sunil Rathee & Ors. vs The State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-07-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category