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

SC panel gets notice over AG office quota

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, July 11

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued notice of motion on Punjab’s plea against the direction issued by the National Commission of Scheduled Castes to provide reservation in the appointment of law officers in the Advocate-General’s office.

The petition against the commission and another respondent was initially taken up on June 20 and again on July 4. But the Bench did not issue notice. As the petition filed through Additional Advocate-General Vikas Mohan Gupta came up for hearing before Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu’s Bench this morning, the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India, was impleaded as a party-respondent on the petitioner-state’s oral request.

Fixing the case for further hearing on July 14, the Bench also issued notice regarding “interim relief”. Justice Sindhu made it clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to serve the newly added respondent through the office of Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain.

Advertisement

The state had moved to High Court after the Punjab Department of Home Affairs and Justice, on May 27, wrote to the commission stating that reservation to Scheduled Caste candidates was not applicable while engaging law officers.

The commission was also told about Advocate-General Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu’s opinion that “the paramount consideration should be given to the ‘efficiency’ of the law officers, who need to perform before the top court of the state as well as before the apex court. There is no legal necessity for the reservation in the appointment of law officers by the state government”.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement