The Haryana Assembly had in November 2020 passed the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Bill which received the Governor’s assent quite recently in 2021. The objective of this Act is that it mandates private organizations in the state to reserve 75% of jobs in the organization for the persons domiciled in Haryana. This Act applies to all the companies, partnership firms, societies, trusts, LLP firms, any person employing 10 or more persons that offer a salary of less than Rs. 50,000 a month. However, State and Central organizations are exempted under this Act.
On bear perusal of the title of the Act it is quite clear that the Act provides for reservation for a ‘local candidate’ which means someone who is ‘domiciled in the state’, presently Haryana. It is pertinent to note various Articles in the Constitution that enable reservation/quota.
Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality before the law and equal protection of law to all persons.
Article 15 (1) and (2) of the Constitution provides that the state should not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of sex, birth, place of birth, religion, or caste. However, Article 15 (3), 15 (4) and 15 (5) allows the state to positively discriminate in four of the those who are unrepresented and neglected sections of the society to promote substantive equality.
Article 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution provides that the state cannot discriminate against any citizen in the matters of employment. However, Article 16 (3) allows the Parliament to make laws with domiciled based qualifications as a preferential treatment for government jobs.
Therefore, the above provisions of the Constitution seek to balance the right of equality of citizens on one hand and the right of the state to legislate for reservations on the other hand.
Problem with the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2021 are as follows:
- There is no provision in the Constitution which allows the state government to make laws pertaining to domiciled reservations.
- Domiciled reservations would flow only from a law made by the Parliament and not the State Legislature. The present law flows from the state legislature.
- The Constitution provides for domiciled based reservations in government jobs only and not in private jobs. The present law mandates the private organizations in the state to reserve 75% of the jobs for people domiciled in the state.
- The present law discriminates amongst those who offer Rs 50,000 or less and those who offer more than Rs. 50,000 as it is applicable to only those who offer less than Rs. 50,000 in a month.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India MANU/SC/0047/1984 had dealt with the issue of domiciled based reservations and noted that to regard an individual of one state as an outsider in another state ‘would be to deny him his constitutional rights and to derecognize the essential unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent States’. The Court also held that a residential requirement of a person as a pre-requisite for a job would be unconstitutional.
The Act is a nothing more than an act of unfair competition between the deserving candidates of another state seeking jobs in the state of Haryana and the residents claiming to have a right of employment based on residence. The Act violates the principles envisaged under Article 14, 15, 16 (2) and 16 (3), 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
DECLARATION
I, Hitesh Vachhani, do hereby declare that this work is the result of my own intellect and the necessary references are provided in the article. The matter embodied is only for an academic purpose. The matter embodied has been properly acknowledged to avoid any kind of copyright issues.
JURISTIC LEGAL 