Domicile Based Job Quota
Punjab and Haryana HC has invalidated a law passed by the Haryana government in 2020, which reserved 75% of private sector jobs for residents of the state.
Why domicile
based quota?
Empower the local youth
Government was not able to generate sufficient employment
Stop migration of people
Many countries allow such reservation in private jobs
Rightful allocation of the resources of the state
Domicile vs
Place of birth
1955: Domicile is a fluid concept (SC).
It can change from time to time, unlike place of birth, which is fixed
Domicile of a person means his permanent home.
Place of birth is one such criteria for domicile status
States where local based reservations are made
Assam
West Bengal
Maharashtra
Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Constitutional
Validity
Power vests solely in the Parliament
Special protections under Article 371
Article 16(3): Exceptions
Andhra Pradesh under Section 371(d) has powers to have “direct recruitment of local cadre”
Article 16(2): equal treatment under law in matters of public employment
Issues with
such quota
Impracticability due to shortage of qualified workers
A threat to unity and federalism
Universality of Indian citizenship
Supreme Court
on jobs for local
Sunanda Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1995): Strike down AP policy for Telugu preference
Dr Pradeep Jain v Union of India (1984): Sons of the soil criteria impermissible
Way forward
Against the reservation ceiling for 50%
It discourages Investment
Voluntary encouragement to companies for equal recruitment
State shoud focus on better education delivery, greater job creation and skill enhancement.
Supreme Court must clarify