Punjab’s Act on law officers appointments challenged in HC | punjab | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 21, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Punjab’s Act on law officers appointments challenged in HC

The law, Punjab Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2017, was enacted by the state government recently. Subsequently, government has advertised 160 posts of law officers. The last for applying for various posts is May 5. The contracts of previous government appointees expire on May 10.

punjab Updated: May 04, 2017 21:46 IST
HT Correspondent
(HT Representative Image )

The law enacted by Punjab government for the appointments of law officers at its advocate general office has been challenged in Punjab and Haryana high court.

The matter was taken up by the high court bench of justice AK Mittal and justice Ramendra Jain on Thursday and hearing adjourned for May 8 asking the petitioner, lawyer, GKS Taank to provide details about the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services), Act,2006, which the petitioner claimed that had been violated while enacting the law.

The law, Punjab Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2017, was enacted by the state government recently. Subsequently, government has advertised 160 posts of law officers. The last for applying for various posts is May 5. The contracts of previous government appointees expire on May 10.

The petitioner has argued that the previous government too violated the law and did not make any provision for reservation as per 2006 Act. As of the law, it has been argued that, the law officers are part of executive wing of the state and their appointment is done by the government and they are paid too from state’s consolidated funds, hence provisions should have been made for reservation as per 2006 Act.

It was also argued that the Act is in violation of Punjab Official Language Act, 1967,which provides for knowledge of Punjabi a mandatory condition for government appointments. It is a special Act and cannot be violated, the petitioner has argued.