Courts in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab are looking at how some people got their government jobs.

北方邦與旁遮普邦的法院正在調查部分人士獲得政府職位的過程。

In Uttar Pradesh, some old village leaders are still in power. The court wants to know if this is legal. The government must explain why these people have these jobs by August 4.

在北方邦，部分原任村長仍在職。法院希望確認此舉是否合法。政府必須在 8 月 4 日前解釋這些人持有這些職位的原因。

In Punjab, a man named Gaurav Bhatti is unhappy. He says two men got jobs on a money committee because of their fathers. He says this is against the law.

在旁遮普邦，一名叫 Gaurav Bhatti 的男子表示不滿。他稱有兩名男子因其父親的關係而獲得財務委員會的職位。他認為這違反了法律。

The court in Punjab asked the city office for an answer. The court will talk about this on July 27.

旁遮普邦的法院已要求市政府提供答覆。法院將於 7 月 27 日就此事進行討論。

The courts are waiting for the government to answer. They want to see if the rules were followed.

法院目前正等待政府答覆，以確認是否遵守相關規定。

High courts in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Haryana are currently checking whether certain administrative appointments in local government bodies are legal.

北方邦、旁遮普邦和哈里亞納邦的高等法院目前正在檢查某些地方政府機構的行政任命是否合法。

In Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court is examining the appointment of former village heads as administrators after their terms ended. The court wants to know if these appointments are actually an illegal way to extend their time in power, which would interfere with the rights of the State Election Commission. Specifically, the court is questioning the validity of Section 12(3-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act. Because similar rules were challenged in the past, the state government must now provide a legal explanation for these appointments and submit reports by August 4.

在北方邦，阿拉哈巴德高等法院正在審查前村長在任期結束後被任命為行政官的情況。法院想知道這些任命是否實際上是一種非法延長權力的手段，而這將干擾邦選舉委員會的權利。具體來說，法院質疑《北方邦村政法》(Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act) 第 12(3-A) 條的有效性。由於過去曾有類似規定遭到挑戰，邦政府現在必須為這些任命提供法律解釋，並在 8 月 4 日前提交報告。

Meanwhile, the Punjab and Haryana High Court is dealing with a challenge regarding the Finance and Contracts Committee (F&CC) of the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation. A councillor, Gaurav Bhatti, claims that the appointment of two other councillors—who are children of Aam Aadmi Party MLAs—broke the rules of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act. Although the mayor had some authorization to make these choices, the petitioner argues that the correct legal process was not followed. Since the F&CC manages spending and contracts, the court has asked the municipal corporation for a formal response before the hearing on July 27.

與此同時，旁遮普邦和哈里亞納邦高等法院正在處理一起關於盧迪亞納市議會財務與合約委員會 (F&CC) 的挑戰。一名議員 Gaurav Bhatti 聲稱，另外兩名議員（為 Aam Aadmi Party 立法議員之子女）的任命違反了《旁遮普市議會法》。儘管市長擁有一定的任命權，但請願人主張並未遵循正確的法律程序。由於 F&CC 負責管理支出與合約，法院已要求市議會在 7 月 27 日聽證會前做出正式回應。

Both courts are now waiting for the governments to respond to decide if these local appointments followed the law and the constitution.

兩座法院目前都在等待政府回應，以決定這些地方任命是否符合法律與憲法。

High courts in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana are currently examining the legality of specific administrative appointments within local government bodies.

北方邦、旁遮巴地與哈里亞納邦的高等法院目前正在審查地方政府機構內特定行政任命的合法性。

In Uttar Pradesh, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court is scrutinizing the appointment of former village heads as administrators following the expiration of gram panchayat tenures. The court's inquiry focuses on whether such appointments constitute an indirect extension of tenure, potentially infringing upon the constitutional prerogatives of the State Election Commission. Central to this deliberation is the validity of Section 12(3-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act. The court noted a historical precedent in Prem Lal Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2000), where similar provisions were deemed contrary to Articles 243-E and 243-K of the Constitution, although the Supreme Court subsequently left the legal questions unresolved. Consequently, the state government has been mandated to provide a detailed legal justification for these appointments and submit reports regarding the Backward Classes Commission by August 4.

在北方邦，阿拉哈巴德高等法院的勒克瑙分庭正在審查在村議會任期屆滿後，將前村長任命為行政管理員的做法。法院的調查重點在於此類任命是否構成一種間接的任期延長，並可能侵犯州選舉委員會的憲法特權。此次討論的核心是《北方邦村政法》第12(3-A)條的效力。法院指出在2000年的「Prem Lal Patel 訴北方邦政府」案中已有歷史先例，當時類似條款被認定違反憲法第243-E與243-K條，儘管最高法院隨後未對該法律問題作出定論。因此，州政府已被要求為這些任命提供詳細的法律理據，並在8月4日前提交關於落後階級委員會的報告。

Parallelly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court is adjudicating a challenge regarding the composition of the Finance and Contracts Committee (F&CC) within the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, Councillor Gaurav Bhatti, asserts that the appointment of Councillors Aman Kumar and Yuvraj Singh Sidhu—both progeny of Aam Aadmi Party MLAs—was executed in contravention of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and established regulatory frameworks. While the mayor acted under authorization granted by the General House on March 24, the petitioner contends that the procedural execution lacked statutory conformity. Given the F&CC's role in the oversight of fiscal expenditures and contractual obligations, the court has issued a notice to the municipal corporation for a formal response prior to the July 27 hearing.

與此同時，旁遮巴地與哈里亞納邦高等法院正在審理一起關於盧底亞那市議會財務及合同委員會 (F&CC) 組成的挑戰。請願人 Gaurav Bhatti 議員主張，任命 Aman Kumar 與 Yuvraj Singh Sidhu 兩位議員（均為 Aam Aadmi Party 州議員之子）之舉違反了《旁遮巴地市議會法》及既定的監管框架。雖然市長是根據3月24日大會授予的權限採取行動，但請願人認為程序執行缺乏法定一致性。鑑於 F&CC 在監督財政支出與合同義務方面的職能，法院已向市議會發出通知，要求在7月27日聆訊前作出正式回應。

Both jurisdictions are awaiting government responses to determine if local administrative appointments adhered to statutory and constitutional mandates.

兩個司法管轄區均在等待政府回應，以確定地方行政任命是否符合法定與憲法要求。