Chandigarh Administration Reviews Controversial Officer Nominations
The Chandigarh administration finds itself at the center of a growing bureaucratic confrontation with neighboring states. Union Territory officials are currently examining fresh panels of civil service officers submitted by Punjab and Haryana governments. Multiple sources indicate these nominations face likely rejection due to apparent violations of established technical requirements.
Punjab's Nominations Raise Immediate Concerns
Punjab has forwarded three Indian Administrative Service officers for consideration. The panel includes Harpreet Singh Sudan from the 2013 batch, Akash Bansal from 2019, and Rubinderjit Singh Brar from 2020. Brar's nomination has generated particular unease within Chandigarh's administrative circles.
Rubinderjit Singh Brar only recently concluded his assignment in Chandigarh during November 2025. He served an extended tenure in the city before returning to Punjab. Administration insiders express surprise that Punjab proposed his name again merely two months after his departure.
"The state government's decision seems quite surprising," remarked a senior administration official. "They submitted his name for Chandigarh posting again almost immediately after he went back to Punjab."
This move appears to contravene the mandatory three-year cooling-off period required between postings in the Union Territory. The rule exists to prevent officers from developing overly familiar relationships that might compromise administrative objectivity.
Haryana's Panel Features Previously Rejected Candidates
Haryana's nominations through the Haryana Civil Services have drawn similar scrutiny. Their panel includes Naveen Ahuja from the 2004 batch, Kamalpreet from 2011, and Manish Kumar Lohan from 2013.
Manish Kumar Lohan previously completed a three-year term in Chandigarh between 2019 and 2022. During that period, he occupied several significant positions including Assistant Estate Officer. His return would mean serving again in the same administrative environment.
Meanwhile, Kamalpreet's inclusion raises questions about persistence. The UT administration previously considered and passed over her nomination, yet Haryana has included her in this fresh panel. This repetition suggests either administrative oversight or deliberate testing of Chandigarh's resolve.
Administrator Holds Final Decision Authority
Chandigarh administration officials have briefed UT Administrator Gulab Chand Kataria about these technical discrepancies. They highlighted how the nominations appear to breach established service norms and cooling-off requirements.
While Punjab and Haryana maintain the right to nominate officers, Chandigarh possesses the authority to demand replacement lists when candidates violate service regulations. "The administrator will make the final determination after reviewing all applicable norms and rules," confirmed an informed source.
If Kataria rejects these panels, both states must return to their drawing boards. Such rejection would inevitably delay filling crucial administrative vacancies within Chandigarh's governance structure. The bureaucratic impasse threatens to prolong uncertainty in the city's administrative functioning.
The situation underscores ongoing tensions between the Union Territory and its neighboring states regarding administrative appointments. Both Punjab and Haryana share Chandigarh as their capital, creating complex jurisdictional dynamics. This latest episode reveals how technical rules become contested terrain in bureaucratic negotiations.
