TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Advertisement for reservation in Punjab AG office challenged

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
Advertisement

Chandigarh, September 8

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued a notice of motion to the state of Punjab, the Union of India, and National Commission for Scheduled Castes, among others, on a petition for quashing an advertisement issued on August 20 for 58 vacancies “only for Scheduled Caste” in the Advocate General’s office.

The notice by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu came on a petition filed by Ishan Kaushal against the state and other respondents.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sindhu also issued a “notice regarding interim relief”. Punjab Deputy Advocate General Lavanya Paul accepted the notice on the court’s asking. Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain, assisted by senior standing counsel Dheeraj Jain and Gurmeet Kaur Gill also accepted the notice.

Advertisement

Appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, senior advocate Pawan Kumar Mutneja contended the reservation was contrary to the provision of the Punjab Law Officers Engagement Act, 2017, and also against the well-settled principle.

It was contended that a similar issue was raised before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Relying on the different aspect of the law and judgments of different High Courts, it was held that the engagement of a lawyer by the state and its instrumentalities was neither recruitment, nor appointment, into service or any post. It was engagement for a specified period for some specified cases to represent the state and its instrumentalities in the court. It could not, and should not attract provisions of reservation.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement