Kind attention of CM Naib Saini-Probe Sought into Alleged Irregularities in HCS Nomination Against 12 Vacancies
Gustakhi Maaf, Haryana- Pawan Kumar Bansal
For Kind Attention of Chief Minister Naib Singh Saini Ji
Representation Regarding Alleged Irregularities, Lack of Transparency, and Denial of Equal Opportunity in the HCS Nomination Process Against 12 Vacancies
Submitted by: Affected candidates.
To
The Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana
Chandigarh
Subject: Representation regarding alleged irregularities, lack of transparency, and denial of equal opportunity in the Haryana Civil Services (HCS) Nomination Process against 12 vacancies.
Respected Sir,
I respectfully submit this representation for your kind consideration regarding serious concerns that have emerged in connection with the ongoing Haryana Civil Services (HCS) Nomination Process against 12 vacancies. The manner in which the process has reportedly been conducted has generated widespread apprehension among eligible officers regarding transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity.
It is understood that only about 7–9 names have been recommended against the 12 available vacancies. There is a strong perception among eligible officers that the process has been structured in a manner that has benefited only a limited group of candidates while excluding a substantial number of otherwise eligible officers from consideration.
The following issues merit urgent examination:
1. Arbitrary Eligibility Cut-off Date
The eligibility date has reportedly been fixed as 01 January 2024, whereas the notification for the nomination process was issued in September 2025. There appears to be no reasonable or transparent justification for adopting a cut-off date nearly twenty months prior to the issuance of the notification. Such an unusually distant cut-off date has effectively excluded many officers who attained eligibility during the intervening period.
2. Denial of Equal Opportunity
As a consequence of the above eligibility criterion, a large number of officers who became eligible between January 2024 and September 2025 have been excluded from consideration. It is estimated that at least 25 otherwise eligible officers have been deprived of an opportunity to participate in the process. This has substantially narrowed the zone of consideration and undermined the constitutional principle of equal opportunity in public employment.
3. Lack of Public Notification and Wider Circulation
It is further learnt that the notification was neither placed on the public portal nor adequately circulated among all eligible officers. The absence of proper publication and wider dissemination prevented many eligible candidates from becoming aware of the process and submitting their candidature within the stipulated timeframe.
4. Recommendations Against Available Vacancies
Despite the existence of 12 vacancies, it is understood that only about 7–9 names have been recommended. This naturally raises concerns as to why all available vacancies were not filled despite the availability of a larger pool of eligible officers. The circumstances leading to such recommendations warrant careful scrutiny.
5. Alleged Issuance of Back-Dated Charge Sheets
It is further learnt that, in certain cases, charge sheets against some officers were allegedly issued or processed retrospectively in close proximity to the nomination exercise. If true, such actions raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the process and create an apprehension that disciplinary proceedings may have been selectively invoked or manipulated to influence eligibility and consideration under the nomination process. These allegations merit an independent and impartial inquiry to ensure complete transparency and preserve public confidence in the selection process.
6. Violation of Principles of Transparency, Fairness and Natural Justice
Any nomination process for appointment to public service posts must be conducted in a transparent, objective, and equitable manner. All eligible candidates must have equal access to information and an equal opportunity to compete. The present process, as understood by a large number of affected officers, appears to have fallen short of these fundamental principles and has created a perception of arbitrariness and favouritism.
Prayer
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I most respectfully request your good office to:
a) Order an independent inquiry into the conduct of the HCS Nomination Process and the circumstances under which the eligibility date was fixed as 01 January 2024.
b) Examine whether the notification was duly published, adequately circulated, and made accessible to all eligible candidates.
c) Review the recommendation process to ensure that no deserving and eligible candidate has been unfairly excluded from consideration.
d) Examine the circumstances surrounding the issuance of any charge sheets or disciplinary proceedings relating to candidates considered under the nomination process, particularly where such actions may have had a bearing on eligibility or selection.
e) Consider re-notifying or reopening the process with a rational eligibility date linked to the actual date of notification, thereby ensuring equal opportunity to all eligible officers.
f) Ensure that all officers who attained eligibility prior to the issuance of the notification are afforded a fair opportunity to participate in the process.
g) Keep the recommendations in abeyance until all concerns regarding transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity have been independently examined.
The integrity and credibility of the civil services selection process are of paramount importance. Public confidence in governance can be sustained only when appointments are made through processes that are transparent, fair, objective, and free from any perception of arbitrariness. I am confident that your esteemed office will take appropriate steps to safeguard these principles and ensure justice to all eligible officers.
With highest regards,