Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana

CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-1-

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHo o o Reservedoon:oo24.07.2025.o Dateoofopronouncement:oo25.08.2025o o

1.l CWPoNo.o6374oofo2000o(O&M)o AniloKumaroGuptaoo o o o o ….oPetitionero o o o o versuso TheoStateoofoHaryanaoandoothersoo o o ….oRespondentso

2.l CWPoNo.o14371oofo2020o(O&M)o o PardeepoKumaroJainoo o o o o ….oPetitioneroo versuso TheoStateoofoHaryanaoandoothersoo o o .…oRespondentsooo o o CORAM:oHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoASHWANIoKUMARoMISHRAo o ooooooooHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoKULDEEPoTIWARIo o o Present:o Mr.oSanjivoGupta,oAdvocate,oforotheopetitioners.oo Mr.oBhupenderoSingh,oAdditionaloAdvocateoGeneral,oHaryana,o forotheorespondent-State.o *****o o ASHWANIoKUMARoMISHRA,oJ.oo oo o Theseo twoo writo petitionso haveo beeno filedo primarilyo assailingo Ruleso9oando12oofotheoPunjaboServiceoofoEngineersoClass-II,oPublicoWorkso Departmento(PublicoHealth)oRules,o1966o(foroshorto"theo1996oRules")ooaso ultraoviresotootheoConstitutionoofoIndia,oinsofaroasotheyodoonotoprovideoforo promotiono fromo theo posto ofo Junioro Engineero (Civil)o too theo posto ofo Sub-DivisionaloEngineero(Civil)ouponoacquiringotheoqualificationoofoAMIE,oaso providedoinoRuleo7(3)(ii)oofotheoRulesoofo1966,ofromotheodateoofoacquiringotheo requisiteo qualification/eligibility.o Ino addition,o thereto,o ano ordero passedo ono VARINDERgSINGH 2025.08.28g10:50 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authencitygofgthis CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-2-

18.06.2020orejectingotheoclaimoofopetitionero–oPardeepoKumaroJainoisoassailedo inoCWPoNo.o14371oofo2020.oTheopetitionersohaveoalsooprayedoforoaodirectiono too considero themo foro promotiono too theo posto ofo Sub-Divisionalo Engineero (Civil)o fromo theodateo ofo attainingo eligibilityo i.e.o requisiteo qualificationo ofo AMIE.oPetitioner-oAniloKumaroGuptaohasoalsooprayedothatoheobeoheldosenioro toorespondentonos.o4otoo23oinoCWPoNo.o6374oofo2000.oBothotheowritopetitionso wereoclubbedotogetheroandoareobeingodisposedoofobyothisocommonojudgmento afterohearingolearnedocounseloforotheoparties.oo

2.o o Petitionero Anilo Kumaro Guptao waso appointedo aso ao Junioro Engineero (Civil)o ono ado hoco basiso ino theo Publico Workso Departmento (hereinafterotoobeoreferredoaso'PWD'),oPublicoHealthoDivision,oHaryana,oono

09.11.1982.oHisoservicesocameotoobeoregularizedowithoeffectofromo01.11.1986o pursuantotooaogovernmentonotificationoissuedoono26.08.1987.oHeoacquiredo qualificationoofoAMIEoinotheoyearo1987.oInteroseoseniorityounderotheopolicyo notifiedoono26.08.1997owasotoobeodeterminedoonotheobasisoofooriginalodateoofo joiningoonoadohocobasis.oPetitioner'soseniorityowasoalsoofixedoaccordingly.o Claimoofothoseoagainstowhomodisciplinaryoproceedingsowereopendingowere,o however,ooverlooked.oo

3.o o Serviceo conditionso ofo junioro engineerso ino theo Publico Healtho BranchoisogovernedobyotheoPublicoHealthoBranch,oJunioroEngineeroServiceo Rules,o 1966,o however,o foro promotiono too theo posto ofo SDEo (Civil),o theo provisionso ofo Punjabo Serviceo ofo Engineerso Class-II,o Ruleso 1966o areo applicable.oo VARINDERgSINGH 2025.08.28g10:50 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authencitygofgthis CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-3-

4.o o Inoorderotooconsideropetitioners'oclaimoinotheowritopetitions,oito wouldobeoappropriateotooreferotoocertainoprovisionsoofotheo1996oRules,owhicho areoasounder:-o o "6.o RecruitmentotootheoserviceoforoCadreoandoex-cadreoposto shallobeomade-o

(a)oo 57%obyodirectorecruitmento

(b)oo 43%obyopromotionofromotheofollowingocategorieso

(i)o Fromo theo memberso ofo theo Haryanao PWDo Publico Health,oJunioroEngineero(Engineering)oserviceo–o25%o

(ii)oFromoDraftsmenomembersoofotheoDraftsmenoando TracersoServiceo-o6%o

(iii)o Fromo memberso ofo theo Draftsmeno ando Tracerso Serviceopossessingoqualificationsoprescribedoinoappendixo 'B'o-12%o xxo o oo xxoo o o xxo (Videoamendmentodatedo29.03.2004,otheosaidopercentageo fromosourceo(ii),o(iii)o&o(iv)ohasobeenochangedotoo30%,o 6%oando14%orespectively)o

7.oQualifications:-onoopersonoshallobeoappointedotootheoservices,o unlessohe:o

(3)oinocaseoofoappointmentobyopromotionofromosourceo4oundero caseo6(1)-o

(i)o iso ao membero ofo theo Punjabo PWDo (Publico Health)o SectionaloOfficerso(Engineering)oServiceoofoaoDraftsmeno memberso ofo theo Publico Healtho Branch,o Draftsmeno ino TracersoService;o

(ii)o possesseso anyo ofo theo qualificationo includedo ino Appendixo'B'oandohasoputoinofiveoyearsoserviceoinocaseo heo possesseso A.M.I.Eo qualificationso ando twoo yearso serviceoinocaseoheoisoaodegreeoholder;o xxo o oo xxo o o oxxo VARINDERgSINGH 2025.08.28g10:50 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authencitygofgthis CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-4-

9.oo Appointmento byo promotion-o (1)o Appointmento byo promotionotootheoserviceoshallobeomadeoonoseniority-cum-merito basisobyotheoGovt.oinoconsultationowithotheoCommission.oo However,onoopersonoshallohaveoanyorightoforopromotiono merelyoonotheobasisoofoseniority.o xxoo o o xxoo o o xxo

12.o Seniority.-o(1)oExceptoasoprovidedoinoSub-ruleo(5)oofothiso ruleorelatingotooofficersoappointedobyotransfer,otheoseniorityoofo theomembersoofotheoServiceoshallobeodeterminedobyotheoorderoofo theiro appointmento ino serviceo accordingo too ruleso 6,8o ando 9o irrespectiveoofotheirodateoofojoining:oo Providedothatowhereotheoperiodoofoprobationoofoanoofficero ofoanoofficerohasobeenoextended,otheoorderoofoappointmentoshallo beodeemedotoohaveoissuedoonoaodateodeterminedobyoaddingotootheo originalodateotheoextendedoperiodoofoprobation.o

(2)otheointer-seoseniorityoofotheomembersoofotheoServiceoshallobeo inotheoorderooforecruitmentoprovidedounderoruleso6:oo Providedo thato ino caseo ano officero doeso noto joino hiso appointmento withino sixo monthso ofo theo dateo ofo ordero ofo appointmentotheoseniorityoshallobeodeterminedobyoGovt.oonoano adhoco basiso aftero takingo intoo considerationo allo theo circumstancesoofotheocase.oo

(3)oTheointer-seoseniorityowithinotheogroupoofodirectorecruitmento shallobeoasoinotheomeritogradingounderorule.o

(4)o Theo inter-seo seniorityo withino theo groupo ofo promotedo officerso (fromo ao particularo source)o shallo beo aso ino theo listo approvedounderoruleo9.o xxoo o o o xxoo o o xx"o

5.o o Petitionero –o Anilo Kumaro Guptao claimso thato heo hado alreadyo completedo5oyearsooforequisiteoserviceoasoJunioroEngineerowhenoheopassedotheo highero qualificationo ofo AMIEo ando therefore,o heo oughto too haveo beeno consideredoforopromotionotootheopostoofoSDEo(Civil)opriorotootheopersonsowhoo VARINDERgSINGH 2025.08.28g10:50 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authencitygofgthis CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-5-

ac=uiredosuc$o$i-$ero=ualificationoaftertiards.o#$eopetitionersoplaceorelianceo uponot$eo*ud-mentsoino9rithioSin$ho"soHartianaoStateo1'e!tri!ittio*oard,o 3223o94:o%5#o647HoRa7#a'o"soHartianaoStateo1'e!tri!ittio*oard+o3226o92:o %5#o332HoN.oS&reshoNathanoandootherso"soUnionoofoIndiaoandoothers+o2030o 95:o%55o622Hoando9ar"eeno:erao"soHartianaoStateo1'e!tri!ittio*oardoando others,o2018 (1) SLR 668.

¶6The claim of Anil Kumar Gupta is contested by the State stating that the ad hoc services rendered on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) could not have been counted for the purposes of considering his eligibility for promotion. It is urged that the petitioner was regularized on 01.11.1986 and, therefore, his 5 years of substantive service as Junior Engineer with higher qualification of AMIE would be completed only in the year 1992. Petitioner's claim for promotion with effect from 1987 is accordingly opposed by the State. It is also urged that the Service Rules do not provide for maintaining seniority in the feeding cadre from the date of acquiring qualification. It is also submitted that recruitment to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer by way of promotion is from different channels of promotion i.e., diploma holders and degree holders, etc. under Rule 6 and, therefore, the petitioner could be considered for promotion only under his quota, as per the principle of seniority-cum-merit depending upon the availability of post. The respondents further contend that none of the juniors possessing AMIE/BE qualification has been promoted or given current duty charge on the post of SDE. The respondents further contend that private respondent nos. 4 to 23 are senior to the petitioner in the feeding cadre of CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-6-

¶7So far as petitioner Pardeep Kumar Jain is concerned, he was appointed as Junior Engineer in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC) on 24.07.1981. He acquired the qualification of Bachelor in Engineering (Civil) from Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra in July, 1991 as sponsored candidate from the Department. He was sent on deputation to the Public Health Engineering Department on

08.01.1997 and was subsequently absorbed in the borrowing department on

09.12.1999. He has claimed seniority over one Ashok Yadav on the ground that Ashok Yadav, although had obtained BE Degree in August 2007, but has been promoted in June, 2014, whereas the petitioner has been promoted in May, 2017, even though he had obtained BE degree in the year 1991.

¶8Petitioner Pardeep Kumar Jain filed CWP No. 7311 of 2020 before this Court, wherein a direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider his claim for promotion. Pursuant to such direction his claim came to be considered by the department vide order dated 23.06.2020. The respondents took note of petitioner's absorption order dated 09.12.1999, which contained the following stipulation: - "He will be treated as fresh appointee in this department. His seniority will be reckoned with effect from the date of joining on regular basis in this department and he will be treated junior most Junior Engineer in this Department. He would have no right of seniority and other benefits because of his old service in the HSMITC."

¶9Relying upon the aforesaid clause, the respondents assert that the petitioner since has acquiesced to the order dated 09.12.1999, as such his seniority in the feeding cadre of Junior Engineers has been fixed only from CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-7-

09.12.1999. A notification issued by the Haryana Government on

29.03.2004 has been relied upon which provided that following percentage would be maintained for recruitment to the post of SDE i.e., 50% by direct recruitment, whereas remaining 50% by promotion from the following categories: -

i) 30% from the Members of Haryana PWD, Public Health Junior Engineers Services.

ii) 6% from Draftsmen members of Draftsmen and Tracers service; and

iii) 14% from Haryana PWD Public Health Junior Engineer Service and Draftsmen Members of the Draftsmen and Tracers Service, possessing requisite qualification.

¶10The notification further provides that percentage indicated above would be maintained from time to time and any shortfall in the category would be made good from the future vacancies. However, no reversion/ retrenchment was to be made to facilitate filling up of such shortfall. The notification further provides that vacancies arising due to retirement, from promotion/ dismissal or death, etc. shall be filled from the category to which the vacancy belongs.

¶11The respondents have accordingly rejected the claim of petitioner Pardeep Kumar Jain on the ground that the higher qualification was already possessed by the petitioner when he was absorbed in the department and, therefore, his promotion to the post of SDE was to be based on the seniority of Junior Engineers in the feeding cadre. The Junior Engineers, who were seniors to the petitioners as per the seniority list of Junior Engineers and were possessing higher qualification and have requisite CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-8-

experience after such higher qualification, could not be ignored. The respondents further asserted that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 241 in the seniority list, whereas Ashok Kumar Yadav was at Sr. No. 127. He also possessed the higher qualification and had completed the requisite 5 years' experience with prescribed higher qualification. Petitioner's claim for further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was, therefore, rejected on the ground that he was to retire on 30.06.2020 by when the requisite 3 years working on the post of SDE would not be complete, as he had been promoted as SDE only on 21.07.2017. Consequently, his claim for promotion came to be rejected on 23.06.2020. The petitioner, therefore, has not only assailed the order dated 23.06.2020 but has also challenged the vires of the Service Rules as is the case in the writ petition filed by Anil Kumar Gupta.

¶12We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Gupta learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhupender Singh learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13Rule 6 of the 1966 Rules specifies the different sources for appointment to the post in a fixed ratio. The Junior Engineer having 5 years' experience of the post with higher qualification of AMIE/BE has a separate quota for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE). Rule 7 provides for qualifications for appointment by way of direct recruitment as well as by promotion. As per Rule 7 (3)(ii) of the 1966 Rules, an appointment by promotion from the source under Rule 6(1) requires the employee to possess any of the qualifications included in Appendix-B, i.e. CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-9-

he has put in 5 years of service in case he possesses AMIE qualification and 2 years service in case he is a degree holder.

¶14Rule 9 of the 1966 Rules lays down the mode of promotion as per seniority-cum-merit. The inter se seniority of the members is determined as per Rule 12. In case of promoted officers from a particular source, it has to be as per the list approved under Rule 9. When the statutory Rules are cumulatively analyzed, it becomes clear that separate seniority is not required to be maintained of a candidate from the date of acquiring his higher qualification. As and when the post meant for a particular category becomes available, the senior most incumbent possessing requisite qualification is then to be considered for promotion irrespective of the date of acquiring the higher qualification.

¶15The petitioners' submission, that promotions ought to be made on the basis of seniority reckoned from the date of acquiring higher qualification alone, does not flow from the provisions of the applicable service rules. Rule 9 read with Rules 7 and 12 of the Rules clearly postulate that promotions are to be based on seniority-cum-merit, subject to availability of posts and satisfaction of eligibility criteria.

¶16The petitioners have assailed Rules 9 and 12 of the 1966 Rules on the ground that they do not specifically provide for promotion of a Junior Engineer (Civil) to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) after attaining the higher qualification of AMIE, etc. as is provided for in Rule 7(3)(ii) of the 1966 Rules. The underline premise on which such submission is made is that the eligibility for promotion having been acquired by the incumbent, he becomes entitled to be promoted. This premise, however, has CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-10-

noosanctityoinolaw.oItoisobyonowowellosettledothatomereoeligibilityodoesonoto confero anyo righto ofo promotiono foro theo incumbent.o Weo mayo refero too theo judgmentoofotheoSupremeoCourtoinoI.oChubaoJamiroandoothersovsoTheoStateo ofoNagalandoandootherso2009o(15)oSCCo169,owhereinoitohasobeenoheldoaso under:o-o "19.oWeomayoalsooaddohereothatotheovalidityoandolegalityoofotheo Governmento Ordero ando theo Notificationo effectingo theo encadrementoofotheopostoheldobyorespondentono.3oinotheoPWDo andoHousingoDepartmentowithotheoEoandoSoServiceodoesonoto seemotoohaveobeenosquarelyochallengedobeforeotheoHighoCourt.o OneocanounderstandothatotheoCourt,oonoscrutiny,omightofindothato theoencadrementowasowrongoandoillegal.oInothatocaseotheoCourto wouldo undoubtedlyo strikeo downo theo encadremento resultingo ino theopostingooforespondentoNo.o3oasoAssistantoDirectoroinotheoEo&o SoServiceonotwithstandingotheofactothatotheodecisionowasotakeno atotheohighestoleveloinotheogovernmentoandotheonotificationowaso issuedowithotheoapprovaloofotheohighestogovernmentofunctionary.o Buto theo learnedo Singleo Judgeo acceptedo theo validityo ofo theo encadrementoandoyetoproceededotoodirectotheodeemedopromotiono ofotheoappellants-writopetitionersoasoAssistantoDirectorsofromoao dateopriorotootheoappointmentooforespondentono.3oasoAssistanto Director.o Theo onlyo groundo foro passingo sucho extrao ordinaryo orderowasothatowhenovacanciesoaroseoinotheopostoofoAssistanto Directoro theo appellants-writo petitionerso wereo eligibleo foro promotion.oItoisoelementaryoandowellosettledothatomereoeligibilityo doesonotoconferoanyorightoforopromotion.oTheodirectionoofotheo learnedo Singleo Judge,o viewedo fromo anyo angleo waso unsustainable.oTheoDivisionoBenchowasoperfectlyorightoinosettingo asideotheoorderoofotheolearnedoSingleoJudge."o VARINDERgSINGH 2025.08.28g10:50 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authencitygofgthis CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-11-

¶17So far as right of an employee for promotion is concerned, the position in law is by now well settled as per which the limited right with the employee is to be considered for promotion, and that there is no vested right as such for promotion. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Sakthi vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2025 INSC 620.

¶18In Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs Union of India and others 2008

(14) SCC 29, the Supreme Court has clearly held that a promotion takes effect from the date it is granted and not from the date when the vacancy occurs on the promoted post, or the promoted post is created. The observations contained in para are reproduced as under: - "7.o ?to haso beeno heldo ino ao serieso ofo decisionso ofo thiso Courtothatoaopromotionota;esoeffectofromotheodateoofobein$o $rantedoandonotofromotheodateoofooccurrenceoofovacanc o orocreationoofotheopostovideoAnionoofo?ndiaoandoothersovs.o B.B.oCaderaoandootherso38D8otiuppo(.)o0CCo6.5*otitateoofo Attaranchaloandoanotherovs.o)ineshoBumarotiharmao.EE7o

(3)o0CCo6D"*oB.oC.otiubbaoRaoovs.o:overnmentoofo9ndhrao 'radesh*o38DD(.)o0CCo.E3*otian4a oB.otiinhao@oothersovs.o 0tateoofo6iharoandootherso.EE!o(3E)o0CCo7"!oetc.<

¶19In Union of India and another vs Manpreet Singh Poonam etc. 2022 (6) SCC 105, the Supreme Court has held that a vacancy alone does not give an employee the right to a retrospective promotion, particularly when the rules for promotion include a prescribed selection process. Promotions and related benefits are governed by the specific rules for such posts and not by rules for a different post. CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-12-

¶20In the light of the principles settled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, we have no hesitation in rejecting the petitioners' challenge to the vires of the Rules 9 and 12 of the 1966 Rules on the ground that they do not provide for promotion on mere attaining of higher qualification as is provided in Rule 7(3)(ii) of the 1966 Rules. The challenge to the vires of the Rules is, therefore, rejected.

¶21Coming to the issue of promotion, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania and others vs S. P. Dubey and others ; 2007 (5) SCC 535 to buttress petitioner's claim for promotion. In this case promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was from separate channels of Junior Engineers possessing diploma and degree. 50% posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment, while 50% were to be filled by way of promotion. 50% promotion quota was equally divided between Junior Engineers possessing degree on completion of 3 years of service after obtaining Engineering Degree and 8 years' service for the diploma holders. The Supreme Court after analyzing the service rules held that service experience required for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer by a degree holder in the limited quota of degree holder Junior Engineers cannot be equated with the service rendered as a diploma holder nor can be substituted for service rendered as a degree holder. When the claim is made for a fixed quota, the condition necessary for becoming eligible for promotion has to be complied with. The two channels of promotion were held to be watertight compartments and a respective claim for promotion had to be made with reference to its specific quota. Neither a CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-13-

diploma holder Junior Engineer could claim promotion in the quota of degree holder, nor can a degree holder Junior Engineer make any claim for promotion for the quota fixed for diploma holder. This principle laid down by the Supreme Court does not advance the cause of the present petitioners. There is no separate quota earmarked for promotion for degree holders vis-à-vis diploma holders. The criteria for promotion herein is seniority-cum-merit. Thus, the promotion can be offered to those who are senior and possess the eligibility and promotional post is available for them. It has not been shown by the petitioners that any ineligible person junior to them is promoted.

¶22Reliance is also placed by the petitioners upon judgment of Supreme Court in Parveen Gera's case (supra), wherein while interpreting a similar provision in the recruitment rules, the Court held that the eligibility criteria for promotion has to be reckoned only from the date when AMIE qualification is obtained. It is only the experience, obtained after passing the higher qualification, which can be taken into consideration. This principle of law has to be applied in the particular service rules applicable to the petitioners. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners, to provide for separate maintenance of seniority or for grant of promotion, on acquiring the requisite experience with higher qualification, as a matter of right, finds no support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case.

¶23In N. Suresh Nathan's case (supra), the question raised was different. The Court held that seniority between the degree holders and diploma holders for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was not CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-14-

relevant since it was a selection post. The Recruitment Rules did not provide that seniority-cum-merit would be the criteria for promotion.

¶24Reliance is also placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs N.R. Banerjee and others 1997 (9) SCC 287. This decision arose out of a direction issued by the Tribunal to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee and to take confidential reports of the eligible candidates for a particular year. This direction was issued as the employees were to retire in the year 1994. Therefore, the confidential report of 1993 was to be looked into and not the confidential reports of 1994. This judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

¶25The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs Vipincandra Hiralal Shah 1996 (6) SCC 721, related to a distinct exigency i.e., clubbing of vacancies of a number of years while preparing the select list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service from the State Civil Service. The Court endorsed the directions of the Tribunal to prepare a separate select list for each year based on vacancies arose in that particular year. This was a case on the facts of its own and its principles are not shown to have any applicability in this case.

¶26The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh and others vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others 2018 (4) SCT 716, also is a judgment on the facts of its own. This Court was interpreting Regulation 9 of the Regulations 92/12 which provided for separate channel of recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer. It was held that 12½% quota for accelerated promotion based upon higher qualification CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-15-

has to be filled on the basis of seniority of a candidate possessing requisite experience for the post with higher qualification.

¶27The Division Bench judgment of this Court also in CWP No. 10931 of 1990 Gian Singh vs The State of Haryana and another decided on 18.01.2011, do not advance the cause of the petitioners urged in the present petitions, either.

¶28The petitioners have also placed reliance upon a judgment of learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Sharma vs State of Haryana, 1996 (4) SCT 715 wherein the petitioner has joined as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in Haryana PWD on 27.09.1973. He passed AMIE examination in the year 1982. Consequently, he became eligible to be considered for promotion on

01.01.1983, as against respondent no.3 and 4, although they had joined as Junior Engineers on 17.10.1968 and 03.10.1961 but had obtained qualification only in the year 1983 and consequently became eligible to be considered for promotion on 01.01.1994.

¶29The petitioners have also relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs N. C. Murali and others 2017 (13) SCC 575, wherein it has been held that unless there is specific rule entitling the applicants to receive promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy, the right of promotion does not crystallize on the date of occurrence of vacancy and the promotion is to be extended on the date when it is actually effected.

30.o o 6not$eoli-$toofot$eodiscussionsoaforesaid+otieo$aveonoo$esitationo comin-otoot$eoconclusionot$atot$eopetitionersBoclaimoforopromotionoinot$eo manneroclaimedoinot$eotiritopetitionocannotosucceed.o5laimoforopromotiono CWPoNo.oo6374oofo2000oooo ooooooooooooo-16-

will,othus,ohaveotoobeoreckonedobasedouponoseniorityoonotheopostoofoJunioro Engineeroasowelloasoonoattainingotheoqualificationoforopromotionoi.e.oDegreeo oroDiploma,owithorequisiteoexperienceoofoworking,osubjectotoosuitability.oOno thisotouchostone,onooillegalityooroperversityoisoshownotoohaveobeenocommittedo byotheorespondentsoinodenyingotheopetitionersoclaimoforopromotion.oItohasonoto beenoshownoonofactsothatoanyopersonojuniorotootheopetitionersooroineligibleo otherwiseohasostolenoaomarchooverotheopetitioners.oInolightoofotheoabove,otheo writopetitionsoareodismissedoandoareoconsignedotoorecords.ooo

31.o o Pendingo miscellaneouso applicationo (s),o ifo any,o alsoo standso disposedoof.o o o o o o o o (ASHWANIoKUMARoMISHRA)o o o o o o o o o JUDGEoo o

25.08.2025o o o o o oooooo(KULDEEPoTIWARI)o vso o o o o o o oooooooooJUDGEoo Whetherospeaking/reasonedo o Yes/Noo Whetheroreportableo o o Yes/Noo VARINDERgSINGH 2025.08.28g10:50 Igattestgtogthegaccuracygand authencitygofgthis