Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Haryana's 75% Local Job Quota Act Struck Down: P&H High Court Declared Unconstitutional Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 To Upholds Constitutional Morality and National Unity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, unconstitutional, upholding the fundamental principles of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of profession enshrined in the Constitution of India. The Act, which mandated a 75% job reservation for local candidates in the private sector, faced severe legal scrutiny and was ultimately deemed to be in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution.

Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, in their detailed judgment, observed, "The Act infringes on the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of profession," emphasizing the need to uphold the Doctrine of Basic Structure. The court unequivocally stated that the legislation's regionalist approach was detrimental to national unity and integration.

The judgment also highlighted the discriminatory nature of the provisions based on domicile or resident status for employment in the private sector. It underscored the unconstitutional implications of such policies, stating, "Discriminatory provisions based on domicile or resident status for employment in the private sector go against the Constitution."

Addressing the issue of freedom of profession, the court observed that the Act unduly restricted the freedom of private employers, conflicting with Article 19(1)(g). The court's stance was clear: "The restrictions imposed are not reasonable or justifiable under constitutional standards."

In a significant commentary on national integration, the court noted that the Act's approach was contrary to the constitutional mandate of national unity, stating, "The Act's regionalist approach is detrimental to national unity."

This judgment is a significant affirmation of constitutional rights and principles, particularly in the context of employment and non-discrimination. The court's decision to strike down the Act serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional morality and the importance of national integration in legislative policies.

The ruling has widespread implications for similar legislations across the country, setting a precedent for the examination of the constitutionality of state employment laws that may potentially infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms. The decision has been welcomed by legal experts and is seen as a reinforcement of the constitutional promise of equality and non-discrimination for all citizens, irrespective of their state of domicile or residence.

Date of Decision: 17 November  2023

IMT Industrial Association and another VS State of Haryana and another

Latest Legal News