IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.02.2026 Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Arvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Satish Saini, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1 – UOI.

Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the claim of the petitioner that vide order dated 08.03.2016, for the promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer, he has not been given the benefit of relaxation for which the reserved category candidates were entitled for, has been rejected.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rules which were applicable on the date when the vacancy became available are to be seen and not the Rules on the date when the consideration for promotion for the same took place keeping in view the fact that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Y.V.Rangaiah and others vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others, (1983) 3 SCC 284, the old vacancies are to be filled under the old Rules hence, the respondents were under an obligation to grant the benefit of relaxation to the petitioner so as to grant him benefit of promotion. The learned counsel further submits that the vacancies which arose qua said promotion were of the year 1996-1999 and though a screening test qua promotion to said post was held on 14.05.2000, the petitioner could not be promoted to said post as the relaxation of the minimum marks was not extended to him. Learned counsel further submits that when the said issue was raised before the authorities, same was wrongly rejected on 08.03.2016 and the Tribunal also failed to appreciate the said claim in the correct perspective which has led to the filing of the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if, the petitioner has not secured the cut off marks required/fixed for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer, the benefit of relaxation qua cut off marks should have been given as there existed the power with the respondent to do same hence, the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of promotion to said post to the petitioner with retrospective effect along with all consequential benefits.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the claim which has been raised by the petitioner is contrary to the settled principle of law. The learned counsel further submits that once while undertaking the suitability test, the cut off marks was fixed, which ceiling of cut off marks was not met by the petitioner, he could not have claimed the benefit of promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer merely because he belongs to reserved category so as to claim relaxation as the benefit of relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that even otherwise, the clause with regard to the grant of relaxation had already been withdrawn at the time when the case for promotion was considered and the claim of relaxation is raised on the ground that on the date when the vacancy arose, there was a provision for relaxation by applying the formula of “old vacancies with old Rules”, which law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Y.V.Rangaiah’s case (supra), has already been declared as a bad law law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9746 of 2011 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar and others, decided on 20.05.2022.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. Firstly, the claim which is being raised in the y