High Court Directs Haryana to Overhaul Clerk Seniority System
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant directive to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The court ordered the commission to revise merit and seniority lists for hundreds of clerks recruited under advertisement number 05/2019. This decision comes after the court declared that bonus marks awarded under socio-economic criteria cannot be used for determining departmental seniority or promotions.
Court's Clear Mandate on Policy Correction
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar delivered these orders while hearing a petition filed by Lalit Sharma. Sharma serves as a clerk in the Pehowa municipal committee. He challenged the existing seniority list covering 538 clerks. Sharma argued that candidates who scored lower in the written examination were placed above him because they received bonus marks ranging from five to ten points under socio-economic criteria.
The petitioner contended that these marks should only apply during the initial selection process. He described the extension of these marks to promotions as a case of triple reservation. The bench agreed with this assessment. The court held that continuing to use socio-economic and experience-based bonus marks for fixing seniority violates constitutional principles.
Specific Orders and Timelines
In its January 8 orders, the court provided clear instructions to the commission. The HSSC must prepare a fresh merit list based exclusively on written examination marks. This revised list must be forwarded to the director of urban local bodies within four weeks from the order date.
The court further directed that the director shall assign seniority and pass appropriate orders strictly according to the revised merit list. This subsequent step must be completed within an additional four-week period. The High Court included a warning about potential consequences for non-compliance. The petitioner would be free to file an appropriate application for initiating contempt proceedings if authorities fail to follow these directives.
Rejection of State's Arguments
The Haryana government attempted to argue that the matter remained sub judice due to pending review petitions. The court firmly rejected this contention. Instead, the bench relied heavily on earlier division bench judgments in the Sukriti Malik versus State of Haryana case. Those judgments had already declared socio-economic bonus marks unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court strengthened this position in 2024 by upholding the Sukriti Malik ruling. The apex court dismissed the state's special leave petition. The High Court observed that these judgments create binding precedents for all similar cases. They cannot be confined only to the original petitioners who brought the lawsuits.
Broader Implications of the Ruling
This ruling carries substantial implications for government recruitment processes in Haryana. The court made it explicitly clear that once a policy is declared unconstitutional, the state has a duty to correct merit and seniority lists across the board. This principle extends beyond the specific clerks mentioned in this petition.
The decision reinforces constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 16. These articles guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment. By striking down the use of bonus marks for seniority determinations, the court aims to ensure a level playing field for all government employees.
Hundreds of clerks recruited under the 2019 advertisement will now see their seniority positions recalculated. The revision process must disregard any bonus marks previously awarded under socio-economic criteria. Only performance in the written examination will count toward determining their placement in the new merit lists.
