CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and
Haryana high court on Tuesday set aside the provisions of Haryana
Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admissions in Educational Institutions) Act 2016 through which the state had fixed income criteria to give quota under the backward classes (BC) category.
According to the rules, which have now been set aside, the children of persons having gross annual income of up to Rs 3 lakh would get the benefit of reservation first in services and admission in educational institutions. The left-out quota would go to such class of BCs who earn between Rs 3 to 6 lakh per annum.
“Within the spectrum of 0-6 lakhs as prescribed, it will be difficult to say that one with an income of three lakhs is more favourably placed than the one with less than three lakhs in income, in terms of social status or vocation… Any further sub classification in the list of backwards without any inputs can be termed to be an arbitrary classification that ensures reverse discrimination which closes the doors of equitable distribution amongst the backward classes,” ordered the HC.
A division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Grover and Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu passed these orders while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by young aspirants to the MBBS course for admission in Haryana under BC quota.
In its 50-page verdict, the HC further observed that the social advancement of a caste or a group would have to be identified on an empirical data and it cannot be assumed straight away that those with an income above Rs 3 lakh would have unshackled the social backwardness.
“There is absolutely no established co-relation between the socially backward and the economic deprived and thus, on the said reasoning, we are of the opinion that the impugned notification has to be held to be bad in law and deserves to be set aside,” the HC held. It also ordered that counselling of students shall be held afresh on the basis of the earlier existing criteria limiting the preference to those BC with an income of up to Rs 6 lakh with no sub-classification.
The petitioners had submitted that such income criteria in BC quota was in conflict with the various Supreme Court (SC) judgments, including the famous Indra Sawhney case and others.
“Supposing a Class IV employee working in a metropolitan city, earns more than his counterpart in a suburb, or a small town but continues to remain economically disadvantaged on account of high costs of living, while his counterpart has more liquidity due to low costs of living and invests wisely to secure income for himself from other sources. The one in a big city would continue to remain as socially and economically disadvantaged though empowered in many other ways, as his counterpart who continues to be as socially disadvantaged though economically advantaged. In its application of the economic criteria as the one dictated by the state it helps the one who has lesser salaried income as he has acquired more from other sources but it has no co-relation to his social status. Both have not been liberated either from shackles of poverty or gained social status,” HC.
Representative image
