IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON:06.11.2025 SWEETY BHARDWAJ ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.

Present: Mr. Sajjan Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ruchi Sekri, Addl. AG.Haryana ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-18), whereby she was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent, alleging that the promotion is illegal and contrary to her preference for the post of Private Secretary. She also seeks a direction restraining the respondents from taking adverse action for non-joining and for restoration of the benefits withdrawn pursuant to the said order.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Scale Stenographer in the Labour Department, Haryana, vide appointment letter dated 27.01.2010. The promotional avenues from the post of Senior Scale Stenographer are to the posts of Labour Inspector, Head Assistant (Deputy Superintendent), and, by virtue of the amendment of 22.07.2014, also to the post of Private Secretary.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite her repeated representations expressing preference for the post of Private Secretary, the respondents have promoted her to the post of Deputy Superintendent, thereby allegedly violating her right to be considered for promotion as per her preference. The petitioner has relied upon certain previous proceedings (CWP No. 3152 of 2022 and CWP No. 33059 of 2024) to contend that her claim for promotion as Private Secretary is pending adjudication and that the issuance of the impugned order amounts to arbitrariness and denial of fair opportunity.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, in detail, that the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-18) is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has been illegally promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Head Assistant) without her consent and contrary to her expressed preference for promotion to the post of Private Secretary, which she had duly communicated to the authorities through multiple representations and emails.

It is further argued that when the service rules provide multiple promotional avenues, the authorities are duty-bound to seek the employee’s option or preference before issuing promotion orders. Failure to do so, it is contended, amounts to arbitrariness and violation of the principles of natural justice, since promotion to one post may foreclose the employee’s right to promotion in another channel. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s case is a classic example of administrative unfairness, as the respondents have ignored her repeated written requests and DPC recommendations in her favour for the post of Private Secretary, and have instead compelled her towards an unwanted promotional post, thereby defeating her legitimate right and career expectations.

Counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite the fact that the order entails adverse civil and financial consequences, as non-joining could result in disciplinary or penal action under the impugned order itself.

It is also submitted that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of promotion to the post of Private Secretary, based on her seniority, eligibility, and repeated recommendations by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 08.06.2022 and 23.02.2023, and further approved by the competent authority on 04.07.2024. Despite such recommendations, her claim has been ignored without justification. The denial of promotion to the post of her preference, despite consistent recommendations and pending consideration, violates t