Can't absolve Centre of liability to reply on pleas against 75% quota, says court
Chandigarh, February 23
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that it did not deem it appropriate to absolve the Union of India of its responsibility to appear and file reply on a bunch of petitions challenging the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, providing 75 per cent reservation in Haryana industries for the domiciles of the state.
The Bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain said that it noted with regret that the Union of India had not entered appearance even though it was served and despite the fact that no less than the Solicitor-General of India had personally appeared in the matter on February 3. He had conceded that the petitions involved substantial questions of law, which would have to be gone into by the court. “In view of the candid concession of the Solicitor-General of India, we do not deem it appropriate to absolve the Union of India of its responsibility to appear and file reply in this matter,” the Bench added.
Law Secy to appear in person
The Law Secretary to the Government of India will appear in person to explain the position in case the reply was not filed by March 1 with advance copies to the counsel for the petitioners. —Justice Ajay Tewari & Justice Pankaj Jain, Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Bench described Haryana Additional Advocate-General’s request for time to file reply to the cases in which the same has not been filed. “In our opinion, the request is unreasonable, considering that even if the replies had to be filed, it could have been well filed in the interregnum between the order of the Supreme Court dated February 17 and today. However, we leave it at that, but the request for two weeks’ is excessive and, therefore, we adjourn the matter to March 4, with the direction that an advance copy of the written statement/s be served upon the counsel for the petitioners on or before March 1,” the Bench added.
The Supreme Court, on February 17, had quashed the HC order staying the implementation of the Act. The HC has made it clear that the core issue for adjudication before the Court was whether a State could restrict employment even in the private sector on the basis of domicile. The assertion came in the detailed order staying Act, 2020, providing 75 per cent reservation in Haryana industries for the domiciles of the state. —
