IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON: 14.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 04.11.2025 OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik(Ravi), Advocate with Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG Haryana ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer The present writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the action of the respondent– department in denying retrospective promotion to the petitioners to the posts of Deputy Superintendent (w.e.f. 21.09.2010) and Superintendent (w.e.f. 31.05.2013), despite their due seniority and eligibility under the Haryana Health Department Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Group-C) Service Rules, 1997 and the Group-B Service Rules, 1982. The denial rests upon the Department’s subsequent application of reservation in promotion purportedly on the basis of judicial pronouncements without any corresponding amendment in the statutory service rules.

2. Brief Facts The petitioners entered service as a Clerk in the Health Department of Haryana and rose through the ranks to the post of Assistant in due course.

Upon becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent, their names were duly included in the seniority list prepared under the 1997 Rules.

However, in the promotion process conducted on 21.09.2010, certain junior officers were promoted under the category of Scheduled Caste reservation in promotion. The petitioners, being senior and eligible, were ignored. A similar pattern followed in the subsequent promotion to the post of Superintendent on 31.05.2013, where again, juniors were preferred by extending the benefit of reservation in promotion.

The petitioners made several representations pointing out that the service rules did not provide for reservation in promotion, and that no statutory amendment had been carried out to authorize such reservation. Receiving no redress, the petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the orders dated 13.09.2010 and 26.04.2011, and consequential directions for grant of promotion with retrospective effect.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioners The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the action of the respondent–department in denying them promotion while extending reservation benefits to their juniors is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory framework governing promotions in the Haryana Health Department. It is submitted that the Haryana Health Department Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Group-C) Service Rules, 1997 and the Group-B Service Rules, 1982, which regulate promotions to the posts of Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent, contain no provision for reservation in promotion. In the absence of any such enabling clause, the Department could not have lawfully implemented reservation in promotion merely on the strength of judicial observations or executive instructions.

It is further argued that statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be amended only through a notification carrying the force of law; they cannot be modified or superseded by administrative orders. By applying reservation in promotion without amending the rules, the Department acted beyond its jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment. The counsel also relies upon the judgments in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396, which lay down that reservation in promotion can be implemented only upon satisfaction of constitutional preconditions such as quantifiable data regarding backwardness and inadequacy of representation, and through proper statutory framework. Since no such exercise or amendment was carried out, th