IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

212 DECIDED ON: 02.12.2025 SATY PARKASH AND ANR.

......PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG Haryana Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate for respondents No.4,5,8,9,10,12 and 13 SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Relief Sought

1. The present civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus to quash the promotion order Annexure P-7 dated 17.01.2017 and Annexure P-8 dated 30.05.2017 qua respondent No. 3 to 18 only and further directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners to the post of Head Mechanic from the dates the persons whose rights accrued later than the petitioners have been granted promotion.

Brief facts

2. The petitioners are employees of the Haryana Transport Department, Haryana Roadways, and the present writ petition concerns promotion to the post of Head Mechanic under the Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995.

3. Under the said Rules, the post of Head Mechanic is to be filled by promotion, direct recruitment, or by transfer/deputation. For promotion, the prescribed eligibility includes Middle pass with Hindi and requisite experience of three years as Mechanic, Borer, Calibrating Mechanic or Turner, or five years as Fitter. By amendment dated 23.12.2011, the post of Fitter was merged with the post of Mechanic, and promotion to the post of Head Mechanic was to be made from the merged cadre.

4. Petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Fitter on 28.05.1997 and petitioner No. 2 on 04.10.1999. According to the petitioners, they became eligible for promotion to the post of Head Mechanic earlier than several private respondents, whether eligibility is considered under the unamended or amended Rules. The petitioners were subsequently promoted to the post of Mechanic in December 2008 and January 2010 respectively. The posts of Fitter and Mechanic carried the same pay scale and were later merged.

5. The respondent department issued promotion orders dated 17.01.2017 and 30.05.2017, whereby respondent Nos. 3 to 18 were promoted to the post of Head Mechanic. The petitioners contend that the said promotees became eligible for promotion at a later stage than the petitioners. A representation dated 30.03.2017 submitted by the petitioners was not acceded to.

6. Aggrieved by the promotion of the private respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned promotion orders qua respondent Nos. 3 to 18 and for consequential consideration of their claim for promotion Contentions On behalf of the petitioner

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned promotion orders dated 17.01.2017 and 30.05.2017 have been issued in clear violation of the Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service Rules, 1995 and the principles governing consideration for promotion. 8. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Fitter on 28.05.1997 and petitioner No. 2 on 04.10.1999. Under the unamended Rules, petitioner No. 1 became eligible for promotion to the post of Head Mechanic on 27.05.2002 and petitioner No. 2 on 03.10.2004. Even under the amended Rules dated 23.12.2011, petitioner No. 1 became eligible on 27.05.2000 and petitioner No. 2 on 03.10.2002. Thus, both the petitioners had acquired eligibility much prior to the private respondents.

9. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners were subsequently promoted to the post of Mechanic on 24.12.2008 and 25.01.2010, respectively, and the posts of Fitter and Mechanic carried the same pay scale and were ultimately merged by amendment dated 23.12.2011. Therefore, the service rendered by the petitioners as Fitters could not legally be ignored while determin