P&H HC directs Union of India to file its reply and make appearance in petitions challenging law governing 75% reservation in private sector jobs in Haryana for local candidates

Read Order: Faridabad Industries Association v. State of Haryana and Another 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, March 2, 2022: In the batch of petitions challenging the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 which requires employers in the private sector to reserve 75% of job posts for candidates who are domiciled in the state of Haryana, the response of the Union of India was awaited. However, when the reply was not filed even after the petition in question contained a substantial question of law, the High Court directed the Centre to file its reply. 

The Division Bench of Justices Ajay Tiwari and Pankaj Jain said in this regard that the Union of India did not enter an appearance in the matter despite being served and despite the fact that the Solicitor General of India personally appeared before the court in its previous hearing and conceded that the petitions involved a substantial question of law which was required to be looked into by the High Court. 

Therefore, in view of the candid concession of the Solicitor General of India, the Court did not deem it appropriate to absolve the Union of India of its responsibility of appearing and filing a reply in the matter concerned. 

Thus, the court directed the handing over of a fresh copy of these petitions to the Additional Solicitor General of India so that he could ensure proper filing of replies on or before March 1, 2022, with service of advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner/s, failing which the Court directed the Law secretary to the Government of India to appear before the Court and explain the reason of such non-filing. 

These stringent steps were taken by the Court in view of the Supreme Court’s desire to decide the batch of petitions on or before March 16, 2022.

Also, regarding the time sought by the Additional Advocate General of Haryana for filing its reply in cases in which reply was not filed so far,  the Court opined that two week time period which was sought was unreasonable and excessive and thus the matter is adjourned to March 4, 2020.