IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14629-1999 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.09.2025 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (P.U.D.A.)

....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manpreet Singh Longia, Advocate for the respondent.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.1999 (Annexure P-7) vide which the claim of the petitioner for assigning him seniority w.e.f. 09.11.1982 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was promoted as Section Officer has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Section Officer (Works) w.e.f. 09.11.1982 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was promoted as Section Officer and also to direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner arising therefrom. Further a writ of prohibition has been sought to restrain the respondents from making further promotion on the basis of the impugned seniority. Lastly it is prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, operation of the impugned order dated 13.09.1999 (Annexure P-7) be stayed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was promoted on 09.11.1982, however, his promotion was subject to passing the departmental examination to be held by Punjab Housing Development Board (in short ‘the Board’). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Board has failed to conduct departmental examination. On 18.08.1987 (Annexure P-5), the Board has passed a Resolution to the effect that if any employee of the Board, who want to appear in S.A.S. examination, may be allowed to do so, however, the period spent by them in connection with the examination will not be treated as duty. Further no claim for promotion to the post of Senior Auditor/Section Officer (Works) in the Board on the basis of their having qualified the S.A.S. examination will be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the failure of the Board to hold the examination for promotion, the petitioner cannot be faulted on account of non-holding of the departmental promotional examination. The petitioner was ready and willing to appear in such examination. It is not a case that the petitioner has not cleared the examination as he successfully cleared the examination as and when the said examination was conducted by the Board.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the case of the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that identically circumstanced person namely K.K. Garg, has approached this Court by raising the similar argument, who was promoted along with the petitioner on the same date vide Annexure P-1 and his writ petition i.e. CWP No.6373 of 1989 was dismissed on 18.11.1998. The Board as per its Resolution dated 23.07.1984 decided to conduct the departmental test for promotion to the post of Senior Auditor, however, the State Government directed the Board not to hold such a test and it was informed that if any of its officials wanted to take the examination for being considered for promotion, he may be advised to appear in the State S.A.S. examination. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the order dated 18.08.1987 (Annexure R-1/1) i.e. the decision with regard to giving an opportunity to the employees of the Board for clearing S.A.S. examination in order to be considered for further promotion. He also relied upon the letter dated 04.05.1989 (Annexure R-1/2) wherein it was decided by the Board that Junior Accountants, who are employees of the Board, would be considered for promotion to the post of Section Officer only when they qualif