Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishal Bhatnagar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059272
2024:PHHC:059272
CWP-19876-2023 -1-
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-19876-2023
Date of Decision: 30.04.2024
Vishal Bhatnagar
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Mann, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate,
for respondent No.2 & 3.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-10) passed
by respondent No.1 being illegal and without authority of law with a further
prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No.2 to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of
Scientific Engineer in Haryana Renewable Energy Development Agency
(HAREDA), Panchkula and also to stay the operation of impugned order
(Annexure P-10).
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059272
2024:PHHC:059272
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the
first prayer of the petitioner for challenge to the impugned order dated
16.08.2023 (Annexure P-10) is concerned, the same has become infructuous
in view of the fact that now respondent No.4 is not holding the post of
Scientific Engineer because he has been given another post of Chief
Scientific Engineer. He further submitted that the only prayer now which
would survive in the present case is that the petitioner be promoted to the
post of Scientific Engineer. He submitted that however the petitioner was
also promoted to the aforesaid post vide Annexure P-12 but thereafter his
promotion order has been kept under suspension vide Annexure P-15. He
submitted that there was no justification for keeping the orders of promotion
under suspension in view of the fact that the petitioner was not only eligible
for being promoted but also suitable for the aforesaid post and further
submitted that the aforesaid order by which his promotion has been
suspended cannot remain in operation for a long period of time because it
would affect his career and even otherwise also, right to be considered for
promotion is also now a Fundamental Right in view of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ajay Kumar Shukla and others Vs. Arvind Rai
and others" (2022)12 SCC 579.
3. Mr. Jagbir Malik, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3
submitted that so far as now the limited scope of the present petition is
concerned, the promotion order of the petitioner has been kept under
suspension and the same cannot be kept for a long period of time. He stated
that he has instructions to state that a conscious decision will be taken by the
competent authority of respondent Nos.2 & 3 by passing an order with
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059272
2024:PHHC:059272
regard to promotion of the petitioner within a period of one month from
today.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is disposed of. The competent authority of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is
directed to take a conscious decision pertaining to the promotion of the
petitioner and the subsequent order of suspension of the promotion order
strictly in accordance with law and after giving adequate opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner or his counsel and thereafter, to pass a well
reasoned speaking order within a period of one month from today.
5. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed
by the competent authority of respondent Nos.2 & 3, then he shall be at
liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.
30.04.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
