- (1.) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.17910, 18940 of 2010 and 3050 of 2012 wherein clause 7.2 of Housing Board Haryana (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972 was amended in the year 2009 vide notification dated 4.7.2006 published on 21.7.2009 is subject matter of challenge. The relevant clause reads as under:- "7 Drawing of lots for purpose of allotment .. (1) Allotment of houses shall be made by "draw of lots" or in such other manner as may be determined by the Board. 2. Unless otherwise specified by the Board out of total number of houses/flats floated in a scheme for allotment to the eligible income categories, i.e. Economically Weaker Section, Lower Income Group, Middle Income Group and Higher Income Group, the reservation for various categories of applicants shall be as follows- JUDGEMENT_315_LAWS(P&H)5_2012_1.html
(2.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to 33% reservation in all reserved categories except widows and in the general category provided to women applicants as first/solo applicants. The grievance of the petitioner is that by creating 33% reservations for women, respondents have allotted the remaining 67% flats to men thereby offending Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Neelam Rani vs. State of Punjab and others, 2010 1 SCT 588 and Ruchi Manglik and others vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.10072 of 2010 decided on 16.08.2010).
(3.) In Neelam Rani's case, this Court has considered the reservation for women in the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 wherein 50% posts were reserved for women. This Court has struck down such condition by observing as under:- "34. Clause (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution empowers the State Government to make special provision for women and children to uplift their economic and social status. Therefore, fixing posts for women per se cannot be said to be violative of either Article 15 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Such reservation is a horizontal reservation and not vertical reservation as in the Rules. The horizontal reservation for women is in tune with the constitutional mandate and not the vertical reservation. Therefore, creation of vertical reservation for women is not sustainable. 35. xxx xxx xxx 36. However, in respect of the posts which are said to be meant for men category, we are of the opinion that women cannot be excluded from competing against the posts specified to be filled up from amongst men. Neither Article 15 nor Article 16 contemplates reservation of posts in favour of men. Such posts are required to be filled in on the basis of merit alone and if on the basis of merit women are meritorious, they are entitled to be appointed against the posts described as reserved for men to the extent of posts meant for women. 37. As per the judgments mentioned above, a combined merit list of all the candidates is required to be prepared. If on such merit, women candidate are not selected to the extent of posts reserved for them, only then women lower in merit will be selected and appointed to fill up the requisite posts meant for such women candidates. Such course alone will be an act of horizontal reservation and in accordance with the mandate of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. 38. Therefore, we read down Rule 3 and the Appendix A to mean that posts other than the posts meant for female candidates are required to be filled up on the basis of merit without any classification on the basis of sex. Thus the words - Headmaster, Lecturer (Male) and Masters wherever they appear in the Rules will include the persons of both sexes. However, such declaration of law is without examining the extent of reservation in favour of women and that whether such extent of reservation violates any law." ;