Jharkhand,Haryana and Andhra Pradesh clear a quota for locals in private sector jobs.
Rationale behind this move
- With growth in industries, the demand for land has been increasing.
- Since most of the land requirement is met by acquiring private agricultural lands, the land owners are being displaced and deprived of their occupation and thereby loss of income.
- Local people have complained that industrialisation in their areas has deprived them of means of livelihood.
- To address this gap, the government has brought this legislation
Impacts
- The act contradicts fundamental rights i.e Article 16 of the constitution which specifically says that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
-
- This would mean irrespective of the availability, all private sector enterprises will have to ensure a minimum employment for local candidates.
- In the absence of local candidates of a particular skill level, the law would force the employers to recruit them anyway and train them. The government has promised help to upskill the staff, but this could be time-consuming. Businesses that have to remain nimble to adapt their business strategies to changing market situations may find it tough to meet this requirement.
- Against the concept of “One Nation”.
- A provision of such sweeping imports could in fact hinder the state’s economic growth by affecting the ease of doing business. Ease of recruiting talent is a major aspect that influences the index.
- Dangerous to the unity of our country.
- Social tensions
- The private sector could suffer a setback as it would hinder choosing the best candidates, irrespective of the linguistic background or domicile of the person, to comply with the rule.
- The act threatens the constitutional fabric of the country as it will create social disharmony in the country.
- It would also violate the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment of the Supreme Court which caps reservation “of any manner” at 50%.
- In 1984, the supreme court allowed domicile reservation in educational institutions. However, the supreme court in the same case said that policy promotion that violates fundamental rights is not allowed as it may lead to fragmentation of the society.
- It would be difficult to attract more investment which is the need for a newly formed state.
- The demand in long turn may end up asking for reservations in private firms too which would be difficult and be a challenge to handle.
SUCCESS MANTRA DIGITAL INSTAGRAM PAGE
