P&H High Court Weekly: No Reservation in Promotion via Executive Fiat, UAPA Bail, and Scrutiny of 'Gau Rakshak' Powers

Chandigarh – The Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a series of significant rulings and initiated key proceedings in the first week of November, spanning critical areas of service law, criminal jurisprudence, and constitutional governance. A landmark judgment clarified that reservation in promotion cannot be implemented through mere executive orders, while another notable decision granted bail to a UAPA undertrial after nearly five years of incarceration. The Court also took cognizance of a PIL challenging the legality of search and seizure powers granted to private individuals under Haryana's cow protection law.

Service Law: Reservation in Promotion Requires Statutory Backing

In a definitive ruling with far-reaching implications for public employment, the High Court in OM PRAKASH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. held that reservation in promotion cannot be implemented by executive action or policy decision without a specific enabling statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench observed that the Haryana Health Department had acted beyond its jurisdiction by granting promotional benefits to junior employees from the Scheduled Caste category. This action was taken despite the fact that the governing service rules—the Haryana Health Department Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Group-C) Service Rules, 1997, and the Group-B Service Rules, 1982—contained no provision for such reservation. The Court underscored a fundamental principle of administrative law: executive instructions cannot override or supplant statutory rules. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that while the Constitution provides for enabling provisions for affirmative action, these cannot be treated as a "charter of privilege" to be invoked arbitrarily. The implementation of such policies must follow the due process of law, which, in this context, requires a formal amendment to the service rules.

In another service-related matter, the Court lambasted the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) for its "disregard to human dignity" and "administrative apathy." In Pankaj Kumar v. State of Haryana and others , Justice Harpreet Brar awarded ₹7.5 lakh in compensation, along with interest, to the dependent of a disabled employee who was denied a legitimate ex-gratia appointment for over two decades. The Court described the case as a "classic example of the administrative apathy that has resulted in denial of livelihood to a deserving candidate," highlighting the profound mental harassment caused by the denial of a legitimate expectation.

Criminal Law: UAPA Bail, Cheating, and Protection for Couples

The High Court granted bail in a long-pending UAPA case, Jagwinder Singh @ Jagga v. National Investigating Agency , involving an accused who had been in custody for nearly five years for allegedly hoisting a Khalistani flag. The bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji noted the lack of substantial evidence connecting the appellant to the main accused, beyond a single phone call. The Court pointed out that the primary allegation was that the appellant had been "indoctrinated" after watching a video and had subsequently encouraged his cousin. This reasoning, combined with the prolonged pre-trial detention, formed the basis for granting relief, reaffirming the principle that bail, not jail, is the rule, even under stringent statutes like the UAPA, especially when the trial shows no sign of concluding.

Conversely, in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others , the Court refused to quash an FIR for cheating, despite a compromise between the parties. The case involved an accused who allegedly defrauded the complainant of ₹4.5 lakh by falsely promising government employment. The Court held that such offences, which involve a breach of public trust and undermine faith in public institutions, "transcend the realm of private disputes." It ruled that a private compromise cannot extinguish criminal liability for acts that have a broader societal impact.

The Court also took a strong stance on the duty of the state to protect citizens. In Mandeep Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others , while hearing a plea from a couple who married against their family's wishes, the Court declared that if protection is not granted immediately upon request, the "authorities concerned shall be held liable for any untoward incident resulting from their inaction." This directive places a clear and immediate onus on law enforcement to act decisively on protection pleas, particularly in cases involving threats to life and liberty.

Governance and Judicial Accountability

The High Court issued a notice to the Haryana government on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) challenging provisions of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 . The PIL contends that the Act unconstitutionally delegates sovereign powers of search, seizure, and confiscation to private individuals, or "any person authorised by the govt." The petitioners argue that this has emboldened cow vigilantes, blurring the line between law enforcement and private activism and leading to increased mob violence. The matter, which questions the very legality of state-sanctioned vigilantism, has been scheduled for further hearing in January 2026.

Judicial and administrative conduct also came under the Court's scanner. In AKASH WALIA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER , the Court sought a formal response from a Judicial Magistrate, Vandana, over serious allegations that she granted bail to an accused who is her close relative. The case raises critical questions about judicial propriety and potential conflicts of interest.

Similarly, the Court expressed deep concern over the "growing trend of non-speaking orders being passed by appellate authorities in Haryana." In BHANUJ GUPTA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS , the Court rapped a Commissioner for a "cryptic" order and sought a response from the Chief Secretary on the need for better training for senior officers in quasi-judicial roles. This reflects a broader judicial pushback against administrative decisions that lack reasoned justification, a cornerstone of natural justice.

Other Key Developments

• Senior Citizens Act: In Chattan Singh v. The Deputy Commissioner , the Court clarified that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is intended for the welfare of the elderly and cannot be weaponized to settle family property disputes or to cancel transfer deeds.
• Manesar Land Scam: The trial against former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda will proceed, as the Court in Bhupinder Singh Hooda v. Central Bureau of Investigation rejected his plea to halt proceedings. The Court found no grounds to stall his trial merely because co-accused had obtained a stay from the Supreme Court.
• Government Exams: The Court upheld the inclusion of General Knowledge and mental ability questions in the screening test for Assistant Environmental Engineers, stating in Amit Ahalawat v. State of Haryana and others that recruitment processes must evolve "beyond rote learning" to assess skills needed for effective public service.

The week's proceedings at the Punjab and Haryana High Court highlight an active judiciary focused on upholding the rule of law, ensuring administrative accountability, and protecting individual liberties against both state overreach and inaction.