IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

244 Decided on: November 11, 2025 (1) CWP-23572-2021 KARAN SINGH ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents (2) CWP-20764-2025 SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents (3) CWP-2484-2025 SATISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents (4) CWP-3399-2022 BALI RAM TANWAR ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-23572-2021 and CWP-3399-2022).

Mr. Mahesh Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-20764-2025 and CWP-2484-2025).

Mr. Rohit Arya, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

These petitions are being decided together as common issue arises for consideration on similar facts. For brevity, the facts are being noticed from CWP-23572-2021, which has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 02.09.2021, Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Head Master, High School with effect from 21.07.2020 has been rejected by the Department. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from 21.07.2020, the date his juniors were promoted as Head Master, High School.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Mathematics Master in the respondent-Department on ad hoc basis with effect from 13.03.1987, and his service was subsequently regularised as such with effect from 01.01.1991. Since he possessed post graduate qualification in the subject, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer in Economics vide office order dated 04.12.2008, Annexure P-1. While working as Lecturer in the Department, he was confirmed as Mathematics Master vide order dated 16.06.2011, Annexure P-2; his confirmation on the post of Lecturer, now known as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT), never came. Since his juniors placed at seniority positions 8445, 8450 and 8451, namely, Ranbir Singh, Maman Singh and Ranbir Singh, respectively, had been promoted as Head Master, High School vide order dated 21.07.2020, the petitioner having seniority position 8442, submitted representation to his Department seeking promotion from the same date. It was rejected vide impugned order dated 02.09.2021. The petitioners in the connected writ petitions, who are working as Lecturers in different subjects in the Department, have also been denied promotion as Head Masters, High School with effect from the date their juniors have been promoted.

3. In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the post of Head Master, High School is in a higher pay scale as compared to that of Lecturer/PGT in the Department. The petitioners were promoted as Lecturers/PGTs only because they had higher qualification at the relevant time, and were never given an option for promotion as Head Masters, High School, which the respondents were bound to give before promoting their juniors. It has also been submitted that the respondents themselves have been giving promotions to Lecturers, similarly placed as the petitioners, to the post of Head Masters, High School. This is apparent from the office orders dated 06.10.2017, 18.12.2017 and 14.05.2018, Annexures P-8, P-9 and P-10 respectively. Besides, entitlement to promotion has been claimed as per law settled by this Court vide judgment, dated 27.03.2012, rendered in CWP-14905-2009 titled Surinder Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, along with connected matters. The Letters Patent Appeal filed against it by the respondents has been dismissed by the Division Bench as also the Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court. The judgment, accordingly, has attained finality.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that the judgment will have n