news details |
|
|
| Irony ! Haryana protects job rights, J&K has no policy for natives | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 17: On Thursday the Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order staying the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, which grants 75 percent reservation to Haryana domiciles in the private sector jobs.
The Supreme Court verdict is the victory of the BJP-JJP alliance in Haryana. This alliance government headed by BJP Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar had ensured 75 percent reservation for the residents of Haryana in the private sector also.
Shockingly, BJP led government in Harayana has reserved 75 percent of jobs for locals in the private sector but in Jammu and Kashmir, the BJP controlled administration is working overtime to render local youth jobless through its deceitful tactics.
What to say of ensuring job rights for locals in the private sector, the present bureaucratic government in J&K is trying its best to make sure that natives of Jammu and Kashmir will not get government jobs.
The incumbent regime, controlled by Babus, is issuing one after another dictatorial orders to deprive local youth of their constitutional rights of getting government jobs.
The recently issued highly controversial circular to withdraw all posts advertised before October 31, 2019, was a glaring example of nefarious designs of the administration to single-out local youth from the recruitment process. Furthermore, the anti-people policies of the present regime also rendered thousands of local youth jobless in the private sector also.
The Supreme Court while delivering its verdict in favour of the Haryana Government on Thursday, however, protected all existing employees and made it clear that the law will be applied prospectively.
It ordered that no coercive steps would be taken against existing employees. It also asked the High Court to decide the matter within a month; the hearing to be considered without adjournments. The top court said the High Court didn’t give sufficient reasons for its decision to stay the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
