HC Advocate questions appointment of Haryana’s 11 Municipal Commissioners over gazette notification requirement
Babushahi Bureau
Chandigarh, August 19, 2026: Punjab & Haryana High Court Advocate Hemant Kumar has questioned the procedure followed for the appointment of Municipal Commissioners in Haryana, alleging that the State Government may not have issued the Official Gazette notifications contemplated under Section 45(1) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.
Kumar has raised the issue through a legal-cum-pre-litigation representation addressed to the Governor, Chief Minister, Urban Local Bodies Minister, Advocate General, State Legal Remembrancer and senior officials of the Urban Local Bodies Department.
The representation concerns the Municipal Corporations of Ambala, Faridabad, Gurugram, Hisar, Karnal, Manesar, Panipat, Rohtak, Sonipat, Yamunanagar and Panchkula.
According to the representation, the corporations are currently headed by 10 IAS officers and one officer of the Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS).
The principal issue raised by Kumar relates to Section 45(1) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, which provides:
“The Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a suitable officer as the Commissioner of the Corporation.”
Kumar contends that the wording of the provision makes publication of a notification in the Official Gazette an essential part of the statutory appointment process.
He has questioned whether routine transfer or posting orders issued by the State Government can, by themselves, satisfy a provision that expressly refers to appointment through an Official Gazette notification.
The representation therefore draws a distinction between an officer being posted to a Municipal Corporation and an officer being formally appointed as its Commissioner under the Act.
Officers named in the representation
The representation identifies the following officers as serving Commissioners:
- Yashendra Singh, IAS — Faridabad
- Pradeep Dahiya, IAS — Gurugram
- Mahabir Parsad, IAS — Yamunanagar
- Virender Singh Sehrawat, IAS — Ambala
- Satyender Duhan, IAS — Rohtak
- Saloni Sharma, IAS — Karnal
- Pradeep Singh, IAS — Manesar
- C. Jayasharadha, IAS — Hisar
- Harshit Kumar, IAS — Sonipat
- Pankaj, IAS — Panipat
- Vinay Kumar, IRPS — Panchkula
Kumar has stated that, to the best of his knowledge and based on the material available to him, the appointments of these officers have not been separately brought into effect through Gazette notifications under Section 45(1).
This is an allegation contained in the representation and is not a judicial finding. The Government’s position on whether such notifications have been issued, or whether existing posting orders legally satisfy the statutory requirement, has not been stated in the material forming the basis of the representation.
2015 amendment also cited
Kumar has also referred to the 2015 amendment to the municipal corporation legislation, under which the earlier wording requiring the Commissioner to be an IAS officer with at least five years’ service was replaced by the expression “suitable officer.”
He argues that the amended provision potentially allows the appointment of a suitably qualified officer who is not necessarily an IAS officer, but maintains that the statutory procedure under Section 45(1) would still have to be followed.
The representation separately raises questions concerning the position of Municipal Commissioner in the context of the IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, referring to a Haryana cadre-strength notification issued by the Union Government on June 11, 2026.
What happens to decisions already taken?
One of the more consequential questions raised in the representation concerns decisions taken by Municipal Commissioners if their appointments were subsequently found to have procedural defects.
Kumar has referred to possible implications for administrative, quasi-judicial and financial decisions taken by the officers.
However, no conclusion can be drawn on this issue merely from the absence or alleged absence of a Gazette notification. The legal consequences would depend upon the interpretation of Section 45(1), including whether the requirement is considered mandatory or directory, and on the effect that a court may give to any procedural non-compliance.
Advocate seeks Government examination
Kumar has asked the Haryana Government to:
- Examine the legality of the existing appointments of Municipal Commissioners;
- Issue or publish the requisite Section 45(1) notifications wherever considered legally necessary;
- Ensure compliance with the statutory appointment procedure in future appointments; and
- Issue appropriate directions to the departments concerned.
The representation characterises the matter as one concerning statutory compliance, administrative legality and the Rule of Law.