Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3576
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J
AMAR LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP-7869-2023(O&M)|CWP-6714-2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R. K. Arora, Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan
For the Respondents: Mr. Parveen Mehta, Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka
Court confirmed the validity of a promotion under reservation policy, highlighting adherence to seniority rules and roster points essential for lawful appointments.
Headnote:(A) Promotion Policy - Reservation for Scheduled Castes - The petitioner challenged the promotion of a candidate from the SC category, arguing it violated seniority rules and quota reservation. The court reaffirmed adherence to the reservation policy and principles laid down in the R. K. Sabharwal case regarding roster operation. The impugned promotion was justified according to the policy. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of intervention in matters of promotion under reservation, highlighting that courts should respect administrative discretion unless violations are clear and evident. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, with over 29 years of service, alleged wrongful promotion of another candidate contrary to seniority under the university’s reservation policy. Petitioner claimed the promotion was unauthorized as the SC quota had been filled. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The promotion of the fourth respondent was valid as it adhered to the reservation policy and the principle of roster points, as supported by the law in the R. K. Sabharwal case. (Paras 7, 9)
Issues: Whether the promotion violated seniority and quota policies laid down by the university and the Supreme Court. (Paras 4, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the reservation policy should be implemented, indicating the need for fair representation while adhering to the roster system for promotions. (Paras 8, 9)
Result: CWP-7869-2023 dismissed; CWP-6714-2024 allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to promotion based on service records and eligibility. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against promotion citing policy violations. (Para 4) |
| 3. university's adherence to promotional policies and roster points. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's ruling on legality of promotion and policy adherence. (Para 9) |
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral)
The aforementioned two petitions are based upon similar facts involving common issues; accordingly, the same are being decided together.
2. For brevity, the facts have been noticed from CWP-7869-2023, which has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.04.2023, Annexure P-10, whereby the fourth respondent (petitioner in the connected petition CWP-6714-2024) has been given promotion to the post of Personal Assistant under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, allegedly ignoring the petitioner’s seniority and eligibility.
3. It is contended by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he joined service in the respondents/University as Steno-Typist on 21.05.1992, and was promoted as Senior Scale Stenographer on 01.03.1995. Despite rendering more than twenty-nine years of service, he has not been given further promotion as Personal Assistant and is stagnating as Stenographer. He belongs to the General category and his seniority amongst the Senior Scale Stenographers is at number seventy-six, as against the fourth respondent, who belongs to the SC category, and is at serial ninety-eight. The next promotional post for them is that of Personal Assistant, and as per Policy dated 15.07.2014, Annexure P-2, applicable to the University, there is reservation of twenty per cent for the SC category candidates for Class III/Group-C posts; the University considers the post of Personal Assistant under Group-C. Total cadre consists of thirteen posts, and as per the reservation Policy roster points 4 and 8 are reserved for the SC category candidates; two employees belonging to the category have already been promoted against these points vide office order dated 30.06.2021, Annexure P-4, and twenty per cent quota is full. The fourth respondent has been given promotion beyond the quota in violation of the Policy, vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023. The post in question fell vacant on retirement of a General category candidate on 28.02.2023, which was required to be filled by another General category candidate only, and the fourth respondent could not have been considered against the same. This is in violation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in R. K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others , 1995(2) SCC 745.
3.1. At the time of issuing notice of motion, this Court vide impugned order dated 18.04.2023 stayed operation of the impugned promotion order dated 11.04.2023. The petitioner filed a contempt petition, COCP no.1610 of 2023, alleging violation of the interim order, and during its pendency bailable warrants were issued against the concerned University Officer vide order dated 29.02.2024. In these circumstances, the order impugned in the connected petition, CWP-6714-2024, dated 12.03.2024, was passed whereby the fourth respondent was “reverted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer and posted in the office of Registrar with effect from 11.04.2023 against vacant post.”
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, have disputed the facts aforementioned by contending that there are fourteen posts in the cadre of Personal Assistant, as one additional post was created vide memo dated 21.04.2022, Annexure R-2/12. As per the roster register, the SC category candidates are to be promoted against roster points 4, 8 and 14. Therefore, the fourth respondent was promoted within the twenty per cent quota of posts reserved for the category. They have also referred to roster register maintained by the University, Annexure R-2/13, which shows in 2018 against roster point 4 meant for the SC category, a General category candidate, Geeta Rani, was promote
