In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has put an immediate stop to the Bhagwant Mann-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government's controversial initiative to promote non-civil services officers into the prestigious Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The court's intervention came after a petition raised serious allegations of rule violations and potential favoritism in the selection process.
Court Halts Process, Seeks Government Reply
A division bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda issued the stay order while hearing a petition filed by the Punjab Civil Services Executive Branch Officers Association and other aggrieved parties. The bench has directed the Punjab government to file its detailed reply by January 22, 2026, and explicitly ordered that no further steps be taken based on the recommendations of the screening committee until the next hearing.
Allegations of Rule Violation and Lack of Transparency
The petitioners challenged the state government's circular dated March 3, 2025, which invited applications from Group A (Class I) gazetted officers for promotion to the Punjab cadre of the IAS under specific rules. The plea alleged multiple irregularities:
- The circular was not published in any widely circulated newspaper, limiting its reach.
- It was not brought to the notice of all eligible officers across Punjab's departments.
- A screening committee shortlisted only 32 officers, primarily from just two departments: the Water Supply and Sanitation Department and the Excise and Taxation Department.
- The petitioners argued that no proper exercise was conducted to evaluate the "outstanding merit and ability" of the candidates, a mandatory requirement under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997.
- It was contended that the candidatures of "a few influential persons" were recommended, bypassing due process.
Legal Quota and Post Availability Dispute
The heart of the legal challenge rests on the interpretation of recruitment rules. The petitioners' counsel argued that promotions under Rule 8(2) of the IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, are meant for exceptional circumstances and are capped. They stated that such appointments are restricted to not more than 15% of the posts available for IAS recruitment in a calendar year.
For the calendar year 2024-25, the petition claimed only eight IAS posts were available for recruitment in the state. By applying the 15% quota, this would mean only one appointment could be legally made through this promotion method, not 32.
Opposing the petition, the counsel for the Punjab government presented a different interpretation. They argued that recruitment under Rule 8(2) can be made for 15% of the total number of posts meant for promotion from the state civil service under Rule 8. The state also defended its transparency, stating that the notice inviting applications was uploaded on the official government website.
The High Court's stay order brings a high-stakes administrative process under judicial scrutiny. The outcome will set a precedent for how state governments interpret and implement promotion rules to the all-India services, balancing administrative discretion with statutory safeguards against arbitrariness. All eyes are now on the Punjab government's reply, due in early 2026.
