23,000 Job Appointments in Jeopardy After SC Scraps Haryana's 5-Mark Reservation Policy in CET

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, today declared the Haryana government's policy to grant a 5-point grace in government recruitment exams to candidates from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds as unconstitutional. This verdict places approximately 23,000 appointments across Group C and D positions in jeopardy.

The contentious policy, initially introduced in the Common Eligibility Test (CET), was aimed at benefiting families with an annual income of less than ₹1.80 lakh, to level the playing field for economically backward candidates. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier struck down this reservation, leading to appeals by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice S.B.N. Bhatti, heard multiple petitions, including those previously submitted by the Haryana government seeking additional time to address more cases. The High Court, in its detailed order, criticized the state’s approach, highlighting the lack of sufficient data or a commission to justify such reservations.

The High Court argued that the policy effectively offered reservation and could significantly alter recruitment outcomes, unfairly benefiting those with the Public Private Partnership (PPP) certificate. This, it contended, contradicted constitutional provisions. Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution ensure equal opportunity and prohibit discrimination in public employment across India. The High Court noted that the reservation was artificially created without solid backing and extended benefits to a specific group, which is not permissible under these constitutional articles.

The Supreme Court's ruling means that the 23,000 candidates who had secured positions based on the earlier results will now have to reappear for the exams. If they fail to pass, they could face dismissal from service. This decision underscores the judiciary’s rigorous scrutiny over employment reservations and insists on adherence to constitutional norms without undue favoritism.