IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 Ramdhari Sharma …Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent no.4 TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 02.12.2024, 11.02.2025 and 01/04.08.2025, Annexures P-12, P-13 and P-16 respectively, whereby the petitioner’s request for implementing the seniority list dated 02.01.2024 prepared by the enquiry committee vide its report of even date, has been declined. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to follow the said seniority list and promote the petitioner to the post of Vice-Principal on that basis.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner as well as the third and the fourth respondents were appointed as Masters (Senior Wing) in the respondent School. The third respondent was appointed on 02.07.1990, and the fourth respondent on 01.06.1991; they lacked essential qualification at the time of appointment as the former did not possess B.Ed. degree and the latter B.Com. degree with Maths/Statistics as one of the main subjects, and also, there had been serious discrepancies in acquiring B.Com. and M.Com. degrees by him. The petitioner was appointed subsequently on 04.11.1993. It is further contended that the third respondent acquired B.Ed. qualification on 10.01.1995, and the fourth respondent on 26.02.1996. On that basis an enquiry committee ‘regarding investigation in the matter of seniority of Masters of senior wing including Vice-Principal’, has concluded that they are not eligible for seniority from the date of initial appointment, and have to be considered junior to the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel has also referred to Rule 11 of the Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (Group B) Service Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘the 1998 Rules’), which is to the effect that ‘Seniority, inter se of the members of the Service shall be determined by the length of continuous Service on any post in the Service’. And in terms of law laid down by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Vaijanath v. Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Devgiri College Campus, Aurangabad and others, 2006(12) SCT 447, seniority of an employee can be counted from the date he/she acquires educational and training qualifications prescribed under the Rules; it cannot be from the date of initial appointment and continuous officiation devoid of requisite qualifications.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of report, dated 02.01.2024, which was not approved by the competent authority and never implemented for any purpose. Therefore, his representations seeking promotion on the basis of said seniority list have rightly been declined. The seniority of Masters in the School was finalised long back and placed on record before this Court in CWP-24200-2012 titled Bharti Bakshi v. State of Haryana and others. She also stated that further promotions/financial upgradations of the Masters have been based upon this seniority list only. The petitioner is junior to the private respondents in terms thereof, and no dispute was ever raised by him in that regard. Besides there is no discrepancy about the qualification of the private respondents, and they had the requisite qualification on the date of appointment. These facts have been specifically stated by way of affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents, which reads as under:

3. …That the aforesaid names are in accordance with the seniority list already submitted before the Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 24200 of 2012 titled Smt. Bharti Bakshi Vs. State of Haryana Others. The