Haryana law on 75% quota in private jobs: HC seeks ‘specific’ reply from Center

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday asked the central government to file a specific reply on its stand in the matter relating to the Haryana government’s law on 75 per cent reservation for local youth in the private sector in the state.

A division bench of Justices Ajay Tiwari and Pankaj Jain passed the order after the Center filed an affidavit that the law has been made by the Haryana legislature and the Indian government has no comment on the same.

However, the bench asked the Center to file a special reply in the matter and adjourned the hearing to March 9.

The High Court had on February 3 put an interim stay on the Haryana government’s law providing 75 per cent reservation in private sector jobs for residents of the state. However, the Haryana government moved the Supreme Court challenging the HC order.

The Supreme Court, while hearing the petition of the Haryana government, quashed the order of the High Court and later asked to decide the matter within four weeks.

Earlier, the petitioner, Faridabad Industries Association and other associations from Haryana had moved the HC challenging the state law and seeking interim relief.

One of the petitioners in the case, the Gurgaon Industrial Association, had argued that Haryana wanted to create reservation in the private sector by introducing a policy of “sons of the land”, which was a violation of the constitutional rights of employers. It was also argued that private sector jobs were purely based on the skill and analytical mix of employees who were citizens of India and had a constitutional right by virtue of their education to take up jobs in any part of India.

“The act by the respondent to compel employers to hire local candidates in the private sector is a violation of the federal structure under this Bill. HC issues notice to Haryana over 75% quota in private jobs created by the Constitution of India , whereby the government cannot act contrary to the public interest and cannot benefit a section”, it was argued in the petition.