IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CWP-6561-2002 (O&M)

DECIDED ON:05.09.2025 DARSHANA RANI ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality of the impugned seniority list dated 30.03.2000 (Annexure P-5), and the reversion order dated 19.04.2002 (Annexure P-10), whereby she has been reverted from the post of Investigator to that of Clerk.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on adhoc basis on 17.08.1987 and she joined her services on 28.08.1987. Later, her services were regularised w.e.f. 01.01.1991. Respondent No. 3, Madhu Bala, was appointed as Clerk through the Subordinate Services Selection Board (S.S.S Board) on 16.12.1991. In the tentative seniority list issued on 17.03.1994, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No. 3, and on that basis she was promoted to the post of Investigator on 18.10.1996.

In the year 1998, new service rules namely, ‘ The Social Defence and Security Deptt. (Group – C)’ Service Rules, 1998 (inshort 1998 Service Rules) were notified, and on that basis a fresh seniority list dated 30.03.2000 was issued which placed respondent No. 3 above the present petitioner. Ultimately, vide order dated 19.04.2002, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Investigator to Clerk. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the seniority list and the reversion order.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned action of the respondents in altering the petitioner’s seniority and reverting her to the post of Clerk is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is argued that at the time of her regularisation in the year 1991, no statutory rules governed the field, seniority was to be reckoned on the basis of continuous length of service. The tentative seniority list dated 17.03.1994 rightly placed the petitioner above respondent No. 3, and no objection was raised at that time and on that footing, she was duly promoted.

It is further submitted that the 1998 Service Rules cannot be given retrospective effect to unsettle the vested rights of the petitioner. The subsequent seniority list dated 30.03.2000, prepared on the basis of the new rules, illegally pushed her below respondent No. 3 and formed the basis of her reversion. Moreover, the reversion order dated 19.04.2002, passed without considering her objections, violates the principles of natural justice.

Also, reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court wherein similarly situated employees, such as Dharambir Singh and Karambir Singh, were protected vide order passed in CWP No. 7411 of 1999 and CWP No.

8222 of 1999, and it is further argued that equity and fairness demand a similar protection in favour of the petitioner.

On behalf of Respondents Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents defending the action submitted that the petitioner’s claim is wholly misconceived. It was argued that the petitioner entered service only on an adhoc basis, and her regularisation was a matter of policy concession, whereas respondent No. 3 was a direct recruit through the Subordinate Services Selection Board in 16.12.1991 and the cadre is governed by statutory service rules notified in the year 1998, which prescribe that seniority has to be fixed on the basis of the mode of recruitment, giving primacy to regular direct recruits over those regularised. In view of the statutory mandate, the seniority list of 20.03.2000 correctly placed respondent No. 3 above the petitioner.

It is urged that the promotion granted to the petitioner on

18.10.1996 was irregular, as she was not entitled to promotion ahead of a regularly selected candidate