IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1555-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Harmel Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate with Mr. U.M. Khan, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Inspector from the date his juniors have been promoted with all consequential benefits. Further a writ of certiorari has been sought, for quashing the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner joined the respondent/Corporation as a Driver on 01.10.2002 and has completed the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Inspector, which requires Matriculation and seven years of service. The seniority list dated 16.10.2024 places the petitioner at Sr. No. 36 as is evident from Annexure P-3, whereas on 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-2), twelve Drivers were promoted as Inspectors, including two juniors of the petitioner who were at Sr. Nos. 38 and 39. The petitioner’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2019-2023 (Annexures P-7 to P-11, respectively) reflect consistently satisfactory performance with no adverse entries. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation followed by a legal notice dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) seeking promotion, which remained unheeded. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a petition i.e. CWP-15061-2025 and this Court had directed the respondents to dispose of the representation within a period of six weeks. Despite this, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-6)

without any valid justification.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further refers to the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner for the years 2019-2023 (Annexures P-7 to P-11, respectively) and submits that, although the overall grading in some years is marked as “average,” the assessing authorities have consistently recorded all relevant parameters as “Good” and have not noted any adverse comments regarding the petitioner’s service or conduct. Therefore, the arbitrary denial of promotion to the petitioner despite his seniority and clean service record constitutes a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the impugned speaking order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) has been passed in a mechanical and pre-determined manner, without due consideration of the petitioner’s credentials, performance and service record, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in accordance with the applicable Regulations and Instructions adopted by the respondent/Corporation, an employee must secure at least ten marks in the five ACRs to be eligible for promotion. While considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector, the competent authority examined the service record and ACRs for the years 2019-20 to 2023-24, in which the petitioner obtained the following grades and marks:- 2019-20 – Average (1 mark), 2020-21 – Good (2 marks), 2021-22 – Average (1 mark), 2022-23 – Average (1 mark), and 2023-24 – Good (2 marks) i.e. total seven marks. Consequently, the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion as he fell short of the required ten marks. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that it is a trite law that while every employee has a right to fair and objective consideration for promotion, however, the