Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063346
CWP-2117-2019 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222
CWP-2117-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.05.2024
Kewal Singh and Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Ms. Molly A. Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG Punjab
Ms. Alka Chatrath and Ms. Divyajyot Mann, Advocates
for respondent Nos.6 and 8 to 10
Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.7
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed for direction to consider the claim
of the petitioner for the promotion from C & V Cadre to the DPE post along with
all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was claiming promotion
to the post from C & V cadre to the post of Director, Physical Education i.e.
Master cadre, from the date, the persons lower in merit were promoted. She relies
on the judgment passed by this Court in Manjit Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab and Others in CWP-451-2008, decided on 05.02.2010, making him
eligible for promotion and that this case is squarely covered by the judgment
passed by this Court in Sukhdeep Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and
Others, CWP-4882-2014, decided on 21.11.2023 alongwith 11 connected matters,
followed in Mandeep Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063346
CWP-2117-2019 (O&M) - 2-
CWP-37716-2018, decided on 18.12.2023 and Daljit Singh and Others vs. State
of Punjab and Others in CWP-809-2021, decided on 19.03.2024. The relevant
paras of Sukhdeep Singh (supra) read thus:
"28. As regards the other connected Writ Petitions, the claim of
the petitioners for being given the benefit of promotion also on
account of their being placed notionally in the seniority list and
notional pay fixation is the issue which this Court is required to
be examined in the present bunch of cases. For the said
purpose, it would apposite to quote the Rules governing the
promotion under the Rules of 1978. Rule 9 provides as under:-
"Rule 9.
(1) Appointments to the posts in the service shall be
made in the manner indicated against each post in
Appendix 'B' to these rules.
(2) As soon as a vacancy occurs the appointing authority
shall having regard to the percentage fixed in these rules
for each method of recruitment determine the manner in
which the same shall be filled.
(3) All promotions within the Service shall be made by
Selection based on merit and taking into consideration
seniority alone shall not give any right of promotion to
any person:
Provided that the promotion of teachers of the district
cadre shall be made to the posts of masters or mistresses,
as the case may be, by selection on the basis of merit and
seniority to be determined with reference to the length of
their service as teacher subject to the condition that if
more than one person are promoted from one district
cadre their interse seniority as master or mistress shall be
fixed on the basis of their seniority as a teacher in that
district cadre."
29. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is apparent
that promotion to the cadre of the DPE Masters is not
automatic. Merely on the basis of seniority, a person is not
entitled for promotion. However, once the petitioners have
been placed in the seniority, their right for consideration for
promotion does arise. Thus, while the claim of the petitioners
for being granted promotion from the date persons lesser in
merit who were appointed 2006 may not be accepted. The State
is, at the same time, required to consider their cases for
promotion as they have been placed over and above the
persons who have been promoted in 2010 and 2015.
30. The State Government will, therefore, carry out an exercise
on the basis of the revised seniority which they will have to
publish in the near future in accordance with what has been
stated hereinabove.
31. If the petitioners are found otherwise eligible for
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063346
CWP-2117-2019 (O&M) - 3-
promotion, their promotion shall be made retrospectively from
the date persons lesser in merit in the original selections have
been so promoted. The consequential benefits shall also follow
notionally. The service record for the purpose of promotion, of
course will have to be considered only from the date the
petitioners actually joined service for the purpose of merit.
32. It is also noticed that the Rules of 1978 have been amended
and also repealed and new Rules have come into force with
effect from 2018, in order to clarify and avoid further
litigation, the State Government is directed that as far as the
seniority list is concerned, the same shall be prepared in terms
of the Rules of 1978 up to the date the said Rules were in force
and the exercise of promotion of the petitioners will also be
considered in terms of the said Rules alone. Keeping in view
that this Writ Petition was pending on the date when the Rules
came into force. After the promulgation of the revised Rules,
the seniority list can be drawn as per the revised Rules and also
further promotions can be done as per those Rules for the
vacancies which may arise after the promulgation of the new
Rules.
33. The State Government shall conduct the exercise of
preparation of the revised seniority list in the aforesaid terms
within a period of three months and the exercise of promotion
shall also be carried out accordingly thereafter within a period
of three months."
3. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for respondent No.7
were unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects
in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
the judgment passed in Sukhdeep Singh (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
07.05.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
