Economic Undertakings

Contempt plea filed in the High Court of P&H against the Haryana General Counsel for breach of court undertaking on the EBPGC quota


A contempt plea was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the attorney general and the chief secretaries of the state of Haryana for allegedly appointing candidates from the economically weaker sections in various departments, despite the court’s pledge not to do so.

Advocacy was advanced by a Suresh Kumar through Avocado Sandeep Kumar Goyat seek contempt proceedings against Baldev Raj Mahajan, AG, State of Haryana, Shruti Jain Goyal, Deputy AG, State of Haryana and Vijay Vardhan, Chief Secretary, Haryana.

Context in brief

Petitioner Suresh Kumar had previously presented a plea challenging the Haryana State notification dated 27.09.2013, which provided for a vertical reserve of 10% for economically backward people in the general caste category (EBPGC) of in the State of Haryana, in jobs in government / government companies and local organizations as well as in educational institutions.

It was alleged in this plea that the notification violated the mandate of the Reserve Act on the basis of the economic situation as well as the 50% limit as provided for in the Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of the Union case. ‘India.

Now, in May 2019, the Haryana State AG submitted to the Court that the status quo regarding the EBPG category nomination would be maintained by the state, however, the Haryana government has withdrawn the EBPGC reserve in June 2019.

In this context, the plea maintains that the UHBVNL / HVPNL / DHBVNL and various other Departments, under the shelter of the opinion delivered by AG & Deputy AG (that the nominations could be made under the EBPG category) have appointed the candidates from the EBPG category to the position of Shift Attendant as well as to the candidate selected through other various announcements.

The advocacy calls these appointments totally illegal and unjustified and intentionally create third party rights and complications to infringe the rights of petitioners.

After the withdrawal of the EBPGC reserve on 06.05.2019, the question of making an appointment for these positions no longer arises at all, but nevertheless the appointments are made, indicates the plea.

Therefore, the plea seeks the opening of contempt proceedings under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 against the respondents for willful and willful violation of the undertaking made in May 2019 before the Court in CWP No. 10479 of 2019.

The case is expected to be heard on Monday.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.