High Court Takes Up Petition Against Discriminatory PCS Rule
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice on a petition challenging a Punjab government rule that allegedly bars employees of State-owned Boards and Corporations from being considered for appointment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) under Register A-II. This channel is a route through which eligible serving employees can enter the PCS cadre.
A Division Bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Deepak Gupta issued notice of motion on the petition and permitted the petitioner to submit an online application provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the case. The petition was filed through the office of senior advocate Dharam Vir Sharma and argued by counsel Manbir Singh.
Petitioner Contends Arbitrary Distinction Violates Fundamental Rights
Petitioner Poonam Sharma, an employee of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (PUNSUP), contended that the impugned provision creates an arbitrary distinction between government employees and employees of State-owned Boards and Corporations, though both serve as instrumentalities of the State. According to the petition, the impugned condition permits consideration of certain categories of Group A and Group B government employees serving in connection with the affairs of the State, but excludes similarly placed employees working in State-owned Boards and Corporations.
The petitioner is seeking a declaration that Rule 10(4)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976, as incorporated through the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (First Amendment) Rules, 2011, is unconstitutional. The challenge has also been mounted to Clause 4(a) of the general information issued along with the advertisement dated June 5 for appointment to the PCS (Executive Branch).
Plea Seeks Parity for Employees of State Instrumentalities
The petitioner contended that PUNSUP is an instrumentality of the State and that its employees discharge public functions connected with the affairs of Punjab. She claimed to possess the requisite educational qualifications, service experience, confirmation in service, and cadre status equivalent to the prescribed requirements. The plea asserted that the distinction drawn between government employees and employees of State-owned Boards and Corporations is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and lacks any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Referring to an earlier Division Bench judgment relating to age-relaxation benefits for employees of State corporations, the petitioner sought parity of treatment and contended that similarly situated employees could not be denied consideration merely because they serve in a government-owned corporation rather than a government department.
Next Hearing Scheduled for July 7
During the hearing, the State of Punjab and PUNSUP accepted notice and sought time to file their responses. The Bench directed that any application submitted by the petitioner would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and listed the matter for July 7.
