Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeev Gupta And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 November, 2025
CWP-33729-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
119
CWP-33729-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2025
Rajeev Gupta and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate
with Mr. Harkirat S. Jagdev, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is for setting-aside or directing the respondents
No.1 and 2 to rectify the seniority list dated 17.11.2017 (Annexure P-5)
of Assistant Environment Engineers and Tentative Seniority List dated
29.06.2022 (Annexure P-9) of Environmental Engineers; and treat
respondents No.4 and 5 as junior to the petitioners in the cadre of
Assistant Environmental Engineer and Environmental Engineer in terms
of the order dated 22.11.2018 (Αnnexure P-6) passed by respondent
No.1 and report of the Committee dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-7)
observing that respondents No.4 and 5 are not entitled to the 5
additional marks on account of Post Graduate qualification in terms of
Punjab Pollution Control Board Employee Service Regulations, 2002
1 of 4
and criteria framed thereunder. Further prayer has been made to direct
respondent No.2 to treat the petitioners senior to respondents No.4 and 5
as Assistant Environment Engineers, Environment Engineers and Senior
Environmental Engineers and set-aside the act of respondent No.2 in
granting 5 additional marks on account of Master's degree at the time of
their appointment as Assistant Environment Engineer being contrary to
the Service Rules, 2002, qualification mentioned in the advertisement
and criteria approved in Boards 139th meeting. Another prayer has been
made that during pendency of writ petition, respondents No.1 to 3 be
restrained from considering the candidature of respondents No.4 and 5
for further promotion to the post of Chief Environment Engineer.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that
the impugned seniority lists dated 17.11.2017 and 29.06.2022 are
patently arbitrary and unsustainable in law as respondents No.4 and 5
were placed above the petitioners on the basis of five additional marks
erroneously awarded at the time of their initial appointment in the year
2009, which is in clear contravention of the Punjab Pollution Control
Board Employees Service Regulations, 2002, and the criteria approved
in the 139th Board Meeting held on 18.07.2008 as it restrict such benefit
only to candidates holding a Master's Degree in Engineering
(M.E./M.Tech.) and not for M.Sc. degree. It is argued that the Master's
Degree in Ecology and Environment from Sikkim Manipal University,
on the basis of which the said benefit was extended, was not a
qualification recognized for award of additional marks under the
2 of 4
governing rules. The Committee constituted pursuant to the order dated
22.11.2018, in its report dated 02.12.2019, categorically confirmed the
illegality in the evaluation process and held that respondents No.4 and 5
were ineligible for such marks, yet no corrective steps were taken to
amend the seniority list despite repeated representations. It is a settled
legal proposition as laid down in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State
of Orissa (1995) 6 SCC 1, State of Punjab v. Hardev Singh (2001) 9
SCC 239, and TATA Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
(2015) 11 SCC 628, that no benefit can accrue from an act contrary to
the statutory provisions and the seniority must necessarily flow from a
lawful assessment of merit. In support of the arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners has further relied upon the Division Bench judgments
of this Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medication Education and
Research and another vs Dr. Arun Kumar Jain and others, 2020 (3)
SCT 218, Anil Vishwash vs Haryana State Electricity Board, 1992(3)
SCT 367 and Ved Pal Mor vs State of Haryana, 1991(1) SCT 76.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he would
be satisfied if the representation dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-15) of
the petitioners is decided by respondent No.1 by passing a speaking
order in a time bound manner.
4. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice,
submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to
respondent No.1 for time-bound consideration and decision of the
3 of 4
representation dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-15) of the petitioners by
passing a speaking order.
5. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned
counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the
representation dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-15) of the petitioners and
pass a speaking order in terms of the judgments Dr. Krushna Chandra
Sahu's case (supra), Hardev Singh's case (supra), TATA Chemicals
Ltd.'s case (supra), Dr. Arun Kumar Jain's case (supra), Anil
Vishwash's case (supra) and Ved Pal Mor's case (supra), after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of
03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners.
Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought,
the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.1.
6. Any proposal to hold the Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) or Chief Departmental Committee (CDC) shall be
kept in abeyance, until the decision on the representation dated
06.11.2024 (Annexure P-15) is taken.
7. Disposed of, accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
13.11.2025
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
