TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

HC puts brakes on filling BBMB Secretary vacancy pending hearing

The bench also stayed the operation of another order constituting a search-cum-selection committee allegedly without the board’s approval

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Less than a month after the post of Bhakra Beas Management Board’s (BBMB) Secretary fell vacant with the incumbent’s retirement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today applied brakes to the move to fill up the vacancy.

Advertisement

Issuing a notice of motion to BBMB and other respondents, Justice Sandeep Moudgil of the high court stayed further proceedings arising out of a communication dated July 25 inviting applications for the post. The bench also stayed the operation of another order constituting a search-cum-selection committee allegedly without the board’s approval.

Advertisement

The direction by Justice Moudgil came during the hearing of a petition filed by Ramandeep Singh Bains and other petitioners. Among other things, the petitioners through counsel RS Randhawa, Tarranum Madan, and Ravinder Kaur argued that the proposal to invite applications for the post was pending approval with the BBMB chairman and not with the board itself. This, the petitioners argued, was in violation of Rule 9 of the BBMB Rules, 1974.

Senior advocate Rajesh Garg and counsel Neha Matharoo, appearing on BBMB’s behalf, prayed for time to file a reply “within a period of one week from today with an advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner”.

The case will now be heard on September 10.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Tags :
#BBMBVacancy#BMBBoardRules#HighCourtStay#JobApplicationBBMBBhakraBeasManagementBoardLegalChallengelegalnewspunjabharyanahighcourtWaterManagement
Show comments
Advertisement