Punjab’s move to introduce SC quota in appointment of law officers challenged

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Punjab government to reply to a legal challenge against its recent decision to introduce a reservation for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates in appointments at the office of the state’s Advocate General (AG). This decision has been questioned by Vikas Bishnoi, a resident of Panchkula, who filed a petition against the move.

A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry has given the state government time until August 11 to respond to the petition. The petitioner is challenging the advertisement issued in April 2025 that introduced the SC quota and the related appointments that followed.

The April notification had, for the first time in Punjab, reserved 57 posts for SC candidates out of the total posts of law officers to be filled in the AG office. In total, 184 law officers have already been appointed under this advertisement, and they have also been made parties to the case.

Vikas Bishnoi, in his plea, has asked the court to cancel this advertisement and the appointments made under it. He claims that the move is illegal and goes beyond the legal powers of the government. According to him, dividing the total number of law officer posts further into reserved categories is not allowed under current rules.

Petitioner calls move illegal

The petition argues that the post of a law officer is not a civil service job or public employment. These are not permanent government posts but contractual positions. The engagement of law officers is done on a professional basis, and there is no employer-employee relationship between the state and these officers.

The petitioner refers to the Punjab Law Officers (Engagement) Act, 2017, which lays down the rules for appointing law officers in the AG office. He says that the recent advertisement violates these rules. He also claims that the move to reserve positions for SCs undermines merit-based selection, efficiency, and sets a risky precedent for similar reservations in other states.

The plea explains that Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows reservations in public employment, not in contractual or professional arrangements like this. Since law officers are not regular government employees, applying a reservation system to such posts is beyond the limits of the Constitution, the petition says.

ALSO READ: Mohali sees poor response to GMADA land pooling, only 15 of 8,000 landowners join

ALSO READ: Punjab: High Court to hear Majithia's plea on July 29

The petitioner also says this could lead to future demands for similar reservations for law officer posts across other states, making the process more complicated and legally uncertain.

The court will hear the matter again after receiving the government’s reply by August 11. Until then, the issue has sparked a debate on whether reservation policies should be extended to contractual, professional roles such as that of law officers.

This legal case could have a wider impact on how reservations are applied to temporary or professional services within government offices. The final court decision will decide whether Punjab's step to reserve law officer posts for SC candidates was legally justified or not.