The issue of fair representation for Punjab officers and officials in the Chandigarh Administration has once again emerged as a focal point in the ongoing debate over inter-state equity and administrative justice. At the heart of this issue lies a long-standing convention that civil posts in the Union Territory of Chandigarh should be filled in a 60:40 ratio between Punjab and Haryana, respectively. Despite being informally recognised and followed for decades, this convention appears to have been eroded over time, with Punjab repeatedly voicing concerns about being sidelined.
Following the reorganization of Punjab in 1966, which led to the creation of Haryana, Chandigarh was designated as a Union Territory and made the shared capital of both states. To ensure administrative balance and to reflect the interests of both states, the central government proposed that civil service posts in the Chandigarh Administration would be filled in the ratio of 60% for Punjab and 40% for Haryana.
This understanding, while not legislated into formal law, was accepted as an administrative convention and followed by successive governments for several decades. It aimed to maintain harmony and ensure that the cultural, linguistic, and bureaucratic composition of the Chandigarh Administration remained representative of both parent states, particularly Punjab, which had a stronger historical and geographical claim over the city.
In recent years, Punjab has raised alarm over what it describes as a systematic dilution of its presence in the Chandigarh Administration. Reports and political leaders have highlighted that Punjab officers are increasingly underrepresented in key administrative positions, ranging from the Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police to senior bureaucratic posts.
For example, as per unofficial data shared by state officials, a majority of the IAS and IPS officers currently posted in Chandigarh either belong to Haryana or are officers on central deputation. This perceived imbalance has led Punjab politicians and bureaucrats to question the sincerity of the Centre in upholding the 60:40 ratio.
The issue was reignited recently when senior Punjab leaders submitted a memorandum to the Union Home Ministry demanding an audit and rectification of the current postings in the Union Territory. They stressed that the absence of Punjab officers not only violates the agreed convention but also marginalizes Punjab’s influence in the governance of Chandigarh—an area deeply connected to its identity, culture, and administrative reach.
Punjab leaders from both the ruling and opposition parties have expressed concerns that the current arrangement is skewed in favor of Haryana and the Centre. They argue that unless the convention is enforced strictly, the people of Punjab will continue to feel alienated from their own capital.
Legally, Chandigarh is administered directly by the central government through the Ministry of Home Affairs. Appointments and postings of officers to Chandigarh fall under the purview of the Centre, which often selects officers from the central pool or from either of the two states based on administrative needs.
However, political experts and constitutional scholars point out that conventions, even if unwritten, carry significant weight in federal systems. Disregarding these conventions without consultation or justification can lead to mistrust and inter-state friction.
The challenge lies in balancing administrative efficiency with political sensitivity. The central government must weigh the need for merit-based appointments against the longstanding expectations of equitable representation, particularly in a city as symbolic and contested as Chandigarh.
Despite the complexities, many believe that a course correction is still possible, provided there is political will and transparent implementation mechanisms. One proposed solution is for the Union Government to conduct a comprehensive audit of all civil and police posts in Chandigarh to determine the current representation levels of Punjab and Haryana officers.
Based on the findings, corrective measures can include:
-
Filling future vacancies in accordance with the 60:40 formula.
-
Increasing deputations from the Punjab cadre to Chandigarh to restore balance.
-
Setting up an oversight committee with representatives from Punjab, Haryana, and the Centre to periodically review the status of postings and maintain transparency.
Such measures would not only restore Punjab’s confidence but also strengthen federal cooperation in a politically sensitive region.
The representation issue is not just about numbers or administrative balance; it also touches on deeper questions of identity, fairness, and historical entitlement. For Punjab, Chandigarh is more than just an administrative center—it is a symbol of its post-partition rebuilding, its linguistic and cultural legacy, and its rightful place in the Indian Union.
Ensuring fair representation in its governance structure could help ease tensions and reaffirm the Centre’s commitment to federal fairness. On the other hand, continued neglect of this issue could deepen disillusionment and complicate the larger unresolved matter of Chandigarh’s final status.
While the demand for adequate representation of Punjab officers in the Chandigarh Administration is not new, it has acquired renewed urgency in the current political climate. Reaffirming and implementing the 60:40 convention offers a practical and symbolic way to respect historical commitments, promote inter-state trust, and ensure equitable governance in India’s only Union Territory that serves as a dual capital. Whether the Union Government responds positively remains to be seen—but for Punjab, the fight for fair representation in Chandigarh is far from over.