JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of aforesaid two petitions since similar facts and law are involved in the same. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from the lead case being CWP-9138-2023.

2. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 08.03.2018, 27.05.2019, 27.06.2019, 09.08.2019, 17.06.2020, 25.05.2022 and 05.07.2022 (Annexures P-3 to P-9) whereby deemed dates of promotion have been granted to the private respondents as Municipal Engineers and Executive Engineers; and for quashing the impugned tentative seniority lists of Executive Engineers dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure P-10) and 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-11) and the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 (Annexure P-14) whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was directly recruited on the post of Municipal Engineer vide order dated 20.09.2012 and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 08.03.2019. He refers to the Haryana Municipal Services (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “2010 Rules”), which govern the service conditions of the petitioner. A copy of the 2010 Rules is annexed as Annexure P-1, and submits that as per the 2010 Rules, there is a prescribed quota-rota system for appointment to the post of Municipal Engineer, 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from amongst Junior Engineers. The private respondents were initially appointed as Junior Engineers on various dates between 2007 and 2012 and were later promoted as Municipal Engineers on dates subsequent to the petitioner’s appointment. However, vide the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 to P-9), the private respondents have been granted deemed dates of promotion as Municipal Engineers with retrospective effect, mostly from 19.04.2012, which is prior to the petitioner’s appointment on 20.09.2012. Consequently, the petitioner has been shown junior to the private respondents in the tentative seniority lists of Executive Engineers (Annexures P-10 and P-11) and in the final seniority list dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure R-1).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the very foundation of the impugned orders stands demolished by the material on record. He refers to Annexure P-15, which is a list of Municipal Engineers promoted from the feeder cadre of Junior Engineers who were already working in the year 2012. The said list shows that there were already 53 promotees working as Municipal Engineers in the year 2012, whereas the total sanctioned strength of Municipal Engineers is 99 and the promotion quota is only 49 posts. Therefore, the promotion quota was already exhausted in the year 2012, and no further promotions, much less deemed promotions with retrospective effect, could have been granted to the private respondents against the promotion quota. The impugned orders granting deemed dates of promotion are, thus, contrary to the statutory quota rule and are liable to be set aside.

5. Further, the Learned counsel also contends that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and other similarly situated Municipal Engineers before passing the impugned orders, which have unsettled the settled seniority position that existed since long.

6. Per Contra, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the scope of judicial review in service matters pertaining to promotions and seniority is very narrow. It is not a case that the impugned orders were passed in violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice. He contends that the private respondents were granted deemed dates of promotion strictly in accordance with the 2010 Rules as they possessed the requisite degree in Civil Engineering since the year 2011, which was mandatory