<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to consider a plea against 100% domicile reservation in public employment in Jammu and Kashmir, months after the withdrawal of the special status of the erstwhile state and its bifurcation into two Union Territories.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat told the petitioners, Najum Ul Huda and Nishant Khatri, to approach the High Court.</p>.<p>The petitioners claimed 100% reservation on the basis of domicile and residence was an "unambiguous violation of law as it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Articles 16(1) and 16(2) wholly meaningless and illusory".</p>.<p>They challenged the validity of the decisions taken by the Union government on March 31, 2020, amending J&K Civil Services (Decentralisation and Recruitment) Act, 2010 by an executive order and another order issued on April 3 which stated that no person would be entitled to appointment to any post unless he or she was a domicile of Jammu and Kashmir.</p>.<p>The petitioners said no citizen can be discriminated on the ground of residence and only Parliament was competent to enact a law to provide residence-based or domicile reservation in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.</p>.<p>After revoking of Article 370 of the Constitution, Jammu and Kashmir did not enjoy any special status and all laws and the Supreme Court judgements were applicable in the Union Territory, they said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to consider a plea against 100% domicile reservation in public employment in Jammu and Kashmir, months after the withdrawal of the special status of the erstwhile state and its bifurcation into two Union Territories.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat told the petitioners, Najum Ul Huda and Nishant Khatri, to approach the High Court.</p>.<p>The petitioners claimed 100% reservation on the basis of domicile and residence was an "unambiguous violation of law as it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity contained in Articles 16(1) and 16(2) wholly meaningless and illusory".</p>.<p>They challenged the validity of the decisions taken by the Union government on March 31, 2020, amending J&K Civil Services (Decentralisation and Recruitment) Act, 2010 by an executive order and another order issued on April 3 which stated that no person would be entitled to appointment to any post unless he or she was a domicile of Jammu and Kashmir.</p>.<p>The petitioners said no citizen can be discriminated on the ground of residence and only Parliament was competent to enact a law to provide residence-based or domicile reservation in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.</p>.<p>After revoking of Article 370 of the Constitution, Jammu and Kashmir did not enjoy any special status and all laws and the Supreme Court judgements were applicable in the Union Territory, they said.</p>
