The main legal point established in the judgment is that reservation in promotion and seniority is applicable based on the rules and classification of posts, and not all posts are covered under reservation rules.

JUDGMENT

Fateh Deep Singh, J. - The petitioners, in all numbering seven, have come up in this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions by way of certiorari thereby quashing the seniority list dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure PI6) and further seeking mandamus to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the posts of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer (SDAO) or equivalent by virtue of communication dated 04.10.2018 (Annexure P12) claiming that their cases have already been forwarded for promotion and thus seeking stay of implementation of purported seniority list (Annexure P16).

2. The petitioners claim that they are working as Block Agriculture Officers/Technical Assistants (BAO/TA) details of which have been duly detailed in the petition and which need not be reproduced here. Earlier the petitioners were governed by the Haryana Subordinate Agriculture (Group 'C') Rules, 1993 as well as Haryana Horticulture (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1998, which have been put up under nomenclature of HAS-II with effect from 17.08.2010 (Annexure PI). The feeder post of the petitioners was Agriculture Development Officer and then to the post of Block Agriculture Officer and Technical Assistant. It is claimed that the respondent State without amendment in the Service Rules, is trying to tinker with the same through the office orders and claimed that there has been restructuring of pay-structure without altering nomenclature of these posts through Service Rules. The petitioners are aggrieved over the fact that they belong to "Scheduled Caste category" and have been denied their ultimate right to promotional avenues. It is claimed that earlier as per the Government instructions there was benefit of reservation to Group 'C and Group 'D' employees of the members of the Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Ex-servicemen by virtue of which reliance is placed on (Annexure P3). It is claimed that the Government issued instructions dated 15.05.2015 as to grant of reservation to the members of the Scheduled Caste category whereby the Government had decided to give 20 per cent reservation in promotion with consequential seniority to the officials from these categories of employees in Class III and Class IV posts with effect from 01.04.2013 relying on the roster point contained in instructions dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure P5).

3. The principal grouse of the petitioners is that the vacancies which are meant for the petitioners in their quota coupled with the roster point, were not allowed to be filled up despite Government instructions/judgment issued on 20.02.2013 (Annexure P9). The petitioners claim that though seniority list of BAO/TA was drawn on 01.11.2016 and after considering objections, the seniority list was circulated vide letter dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure P10), but the same was subject to pendency of CWP No. 11073 of 2015 which could be reviewed subject to the ultimate final decision in the writ petition which is still pending. There have been allegations of heart-burning amongst the staff of the Department for having made wrong advice and drawn wrong presumption and thus causing immense prejudice to the seniority of the petitioners and ultimately which is going to affect their subsequent promotions to higher echelons. The petitioners have claimed that once seniority has been finalized, the same cannot be tinkered with and that the respondents by issuing such fresh communications are trying to undo the effects of the same contrary to the settled law and thereby have by drawing the provisional seniority list, ended up preparing two parallel seniority lists which is not permissible under the law and has termed (Annexure PI6) to be malafide, illegal, contrary to the settled proposition of law and hence the relief in question is being sought.

4. Two different sets of written statements, one by respondents No.1 and 2, the State, and the other by private respondents No.3 to 8 were filed. The net effect o