SC Issues Notices Over Haryana's Domicile Quota Challenge in Private Jobs

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has directed the Centre and the Faridabad Industries Association to respond to the Haryana Government's plea challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to invalidate the state's 75 per cent domicile quota in private sector employment. This move comes after the High Court deemed the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, as "unconstitutional" and ineffective since its enactment. 

The contentious Act, implemented on January 15, 2022, aimed to reserve 75 per cent of private sector jobs for local candidates with a maximum monthly salary of Rs 30,000. It was a pivotal electoral promise of the Jannayak Janta Party, a key coalition partner in the ruling government, during the 2019 elections. However, the High Court highlighted constitutional provisions barring discrimination based on birthplace or residence in employment matters, asserting that the Act violated these principles. 

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Haryana Government, raised objections to the High Court's ruling, questioning its rationale. The court, echoing concerns over constitutional morality, emphasized that state legislation cannot impose restrictions on private employers, thus impeding their ability to recruit from the open market. It argued that such measures create artificial barriers and undermine the fundamental rights of citizens to earn a livelihood.

Furthermore, the High Court underscored the broader implications of the Act, expressing apprehensions about setting a precedent for similar state enactments across the country. It cautioned against the potential proliferation of regional quotas, which could fragment the national job market and contravene the spirit of the Constitution.

This legal battle raises fundamental questions about the balance between state autonomy and constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. As the Supreme Court delves into the intricacies of the case, it will confront the complex interplay between legislative intent, constitutional mandates, and economic imperatives in shaping employment policies.