##PAGE1##

1

CWP-15991-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

209 CWP-15991-2021

Date of decision:19.12.2025

Savita Ahuja

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature

of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.05.2021 (Annexure P-17) vide

which the claim of petitioner of her retrospective promotion as Sub

Divisional Engineer has been rejected by passing a totally non-speaking

order. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing respondent No.2 to consider and promote the petitioner as Sub

Divisional Engineer w.e.f. 25.01.2016 along with all consequential benefits

under 2% quota carved out for promotion amongst the Circle Head

PUNEET CHAWLA

2025.12.22 11:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

CWP-15991-2021

Draftsman or Division Head Draftsman who possess the degree in

Engineering in Civil Or Mechanical or a degree in AMIE from a recognized

university.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detailed

representation dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-16) submitted by the

petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 21.05.2021

(Annexure P-17) by passing a cryptic four-line order. Learned counsel

confines his prayer to the extent of setting aside the order dated 21.05.2021

(Annexure P-17) on the ground that the same has been passed in a

mechanical manner and is a non-speaking order. It is contended that the

impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, having been passed

without assigning any reasons or even discussing the gist of the

representation. Accordingly, a direction is sought for reconsideration of the

petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-16) by passing a well-reasoned

speaking order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the

fact that the impugned order in the present case is a cryptic and non-

speaking order and submits that a fresh order shall be passed in accordance

with law by issuing a well-reasoned speaking order.

4. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, the present writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2/the

competent authority is directed to decide the petitioner’s representation

PUNEET CHAWLA

2025.12.22 11:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

CWP-15991-2021

dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-16) and consider her claim by passing a

reasoned and speaking order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of

hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to

the petitioner forthwith. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to

the relief claimed, the same shall be granted to her forthwith in accordance

with law.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, be also disposed

of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

December 19, 2025

P.C

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No

Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

PUNEET CHAWLA

2025.12.22 11:22

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document