Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sandeep Moudgil, J
Sidharth – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-9766-2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.K. Malik, Sandeep Dhull
For the Respondents: Rahul Dev Singh

An administrative authority has the power to grant deemed date promotions to neutralize the impact of administrative delays and policy shifts in qualification, especially when the promotional process for those employees had commenced prior to the introduction of new eligibility requirements.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226/227 - Service Law - Deemed date of promotion - Administrative delay - Restoration of seniority - Petitioners challenged the grant of deemed promotion to Class-IV employees to the post of Clerk w.e.f. 07.10.2013, citing non-compliance with the State Eligibility Test in Computer Appreciation and Applications (SETC) mandated by the 2013 Service Rules - Court held that the department was forced to restructure promotions due to administrative shift in educational qualifications (matriculation to 10+2) - Deemed promotion is a lawful administrative exercise to neutralize prejudice caused by delays and to protect the promotional rights of employees whose selection process was already initiated prior to the amendment - Petitioners failed to show any infringement of vested or accrued rights - Petition dismissed. (Paras 16, 18, 20, 21, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were appointed as Clerks in 2018, challenged the deemed promotion granted to the private respondents (former Class-IV employees) to Clerk and Sub Divisional Clerk posts. The petitioners argued that the respondents failed to qualify the SETC exam, which was made mandatory under the 2013 amendment to the Haryana Irrigation Department, Circle Clerical (Group-C) Service Rules, 1982.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the government’s 2013 amendment and the SETC requirement were prospective in nature. The deemed promotion was a valid administrative measure to correct anomalies arising from the delayed processing of promotions for employees whose eligibility was under consideration prior to the 2013 notification.

Issues: Whether the grant of deemed date promotion to employees who had not passed the SETC exam was arbitrary or contrary to the 1982 Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative decision to grant deemed promotion to rectify delays in the promotion process, ensuring that long-serving employees are not prejudiced by subsequent changes in qualification criteria, is a valid exercise of administrative discretion and cannot be deemed arbitrary.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and statutory service regulations governing the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties argument regarding mandatory exams and administrative delays. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. court justifies deemed promotion as remedial administrative action. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. final dismissal of the petition confirming administrative validity. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

1.	The date when the judgment is reserved	22.04.2026
2.	The date when the judgment is pronounced	19.05.2026
3.	The date when the judgment is uploaded	19.05.2026
4.	Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced	Full
5.	The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof.	Not applicable

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 19/30.08.2019 (Annexure P-7) by which the private respondents were granted deemed date of promotion as clerks w.e.f. 07.10.2013 and order dated 13/14.01.2020 & 30.03.2021/07.04.2021 (Annexure P-8 & P-9) by which they have been further promoted as sub-divisional clerks w.e.f 31.10.2018, with a further prayer to restrain the official respondents to promote the private respondents any further as Accounts Clerks during pendency of the present petition.

The Conspectus Of Facts

2. The petitioners are employees of the Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Haryana who were appointed as Clerks on regular basis on 19.03.2018 through direct recruitment and subsequently qualified the State Eligibility Test in Computer Appreciation and Applications (SETC). Thereafter, they were promoted as Sub Divisional Clerks during the year 2020.

3. The service conditions governing the posts of Clerk, Sub Divisional Clerk and Accounts Clerk in the department are regulated by the Haryana Irrigation Department, Circle Clerical (Group-C) Service Rules, 1982, which were amended vide notification dated 11.11.2013. Pursuant to Government instructions dated 07.11.2013, the requirement of qualifying the SETC examination was introduced for ministerial employees holding clerical posts.

4. The private respondents, who were initially working on Class-IV posts, were promoted as Clerks vide orders issued during the years 2014 and 2015. Subsequently, vide order dated 19/30.08.2019, deemed dates of promotion as Clerks w.e.f. 07.10.2013 were granted to the private respondents. Thereafter, the private respondents were promoted as Sub Divisional Clerks vide orders dated 13/14.01.2020 and 30.03.2021/07.04.2021.

5. A communication dated 27.09.2019 was issued by the Engineer-in-Chief calling for information regarding Clerks who had not qualified the SETC examination within the prescribed period. Thereafter, applications were invited for consideration of eligible Sub Divisional Clerks for promotion to the post of Accounts Clerk vide communication dated 07.05.2021.

6. Hence, the present petition.

Contentions

On behalf of Petitioners

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that under the Haryana Irrigation Department, Circle Clerical (Group-C) Service Rules, 1982, as amended vide notification dated 11.11.2013, a promotee Clerk was required to qualify the prescribed type test as well as the SETC examination within the stipulated period, failing which he was liable to be reverted to the substantive post. It is argued that the private respondents, despite having not qualified the requisite examinations within time, were not reverted and were instead granted deemed date promotions as Clerks and thereafter promoted as Sub Divisional Clerks vide the impugned orders.

8. Counsel further submits that once the private respondents were not eligible to continue on the post of Clerk, which constituted the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Clerk, thei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHSandeep Moudgil, JSidharth – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – RespondentCWP-9766-2021

An administrative authority has the power to grant deemed date promotions to neutralize the impact of administrative delays and policy shifts in qualification, especially when the promotional process for those employees had commenced prior to the introduction of new eligibility requirements.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sandeep Moudgil, J
Sidharth – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CWP-9766-2021