Devinder Kaur vs State Of Pb.

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-15390-2001 (O&M)
DEVINDER KAUR
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
....RESPONDENTS
CWP-813-2002 (O&M)
RAM PARSHAD
. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-15390-2001
Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-813-2002
Mr. TPS Walia, AAG Punjab
Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 and 4 in CWP-15390-2001 and
for respondents No. 3 to 6 in CWP-813-2002
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 12.08.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 05.11.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 05.11.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment Not applicable
and reason thereof.
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -2-
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J
Vide this common order, both the writ petitions filed before this
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are being disposed
of together, as they raise substantially identical questions of fact and law. For the
sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP-15390-2001.
Prayer
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 21.01.2000,
13.02.2001 and 02.03.2001, whereby respondents No.3 and 4 were promoted as
Senior Assistant and respondent No.3 was thereafter promoted as Superintendent
Grade-II, and a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner with
retrospective effect from the dates her juniors were promoted, with all
consequential benefits. 
The Conspectus Of Facts
2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Steno Typist on
05.09.1994 and joined the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar on
16.09.1994. She subsequently worked at the State Commission and different
District Forums. Respondent No.4 joined as Clerk on 24.04.1995, whereas
respondent No.3 joined as Clerk in the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib on
16.01.1997. Thus, the petitioner was senior to both the private respondents in
length of service. 
3. A vacancy of Senior Assistant arose in the State Commission, for
which applications were invited from Clerks working in the District Forums.
Respondent No.3 was promoted as Senior Assistant on 21.01.2000 and thereafter
as Superintendent Grade-II with effect from 13.02.2001. Respondent No.4 was
promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 02.03.2001. The petitioner, having
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -3-
been superseded by both her juniors, questioned the basis on which the
promotions were made and claimed promotion over and above the respondents.
4. Hence, this petition.
5. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner was
ultimately promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 28.11.2008 and has since
retired from service thereafter on 30.11.2022 from the said post.
Contentions
On behalf of Petitioners
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had
entered service as a Clerk in the District Forum on 05.09.1994, prior to
respondents No. 3 and 4, and was consequently senior to them and entitled to fair
consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. It was argued that no
specific service rules governing the service conditions of employees of the State
Commission and the District Consumer Fora had been framed at the relevant time
and, in the absence thereof, the service conditions were governed by the Punjab
Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules,
1994(Hereinafter referred as Rules of 1994). The respondents, therefore, could not
adopt an arbitrary or inconsistent procedure for making promotions while
overlooking the petitioner's claim.
7. It was further contended that the respondents had successively
adopted different criteria for filling the post of Senior Assistant in the cases of
respondents No. 3 and 4, without following any uniform or transparent procedure.
Learned counsel emphasised that graduation was not prescribed as a qualification
for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant under Rule 14-A of the 1994 Rules,
the said qualification being stipulated for direct recruitment. It was submitted that
the petitioner had been excluded from consideration on the ground that she was
not a graduate, although that condition was contemplated under the applicable
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -4-
rules. In this regard, it was pointed out that respondent No. 4, despite being non-
graduate and initially having been overlooked on that very ground, was
subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. 
8. Learned counsel further assailed the respondents' plea that the State
Commission and the District Consumer Fora constituted separate cadres. It was
argued that, having invited eligible employees from different District Fora for
consideration against promotional vacancies, the respondents were required to
adopt a uniform and objective mechanism for determining their relative claims.
The absence of specific service rules could not be used to justify an arbitrary or
selective exercise of promotional powers. It was contended that the successive
issuance of separate circulars, the inconsistent application of eligibility criteria and
the failure to consider the petitioner, despite her asserted seniority, rendered the
promotions of respondents No. 3 and 4 arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution.
9. It was accordingly urged that the petitioner was entitled to notional
promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from the date her junior was promoted,
together with consequential service and pensionary benefits.
On behalf of Respondents
10. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and
submitted that the petitioner had no vested right to promotion merely on the basis
of her length of service. It is contended that, at the relevant time, there were no
specific service rules prescribing that the post of Senior Assistant was required to
be filled strictly on the basis of seniority. The respondents accordingly adopted the
procedure considered appropriate for filling the available vacancies and invited
applications from eligible Clerks working in District Forums, who were
interviewed. It is argued that respondent No.3 was selected on the basis of his
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -5-
qualification, experience and suitability, and that the petitioner could not seek
retrospective promotion merely because she was senior to him in the District
cadre.
11. Upon a query put forth by this Court regarding the preparation of a
common seniority list of clerks working under the District Forum, it was
submitted by the State Counsel, after getting instructions from the Assistant
Registrar, that the State Commission and the District Consumer Fora were
functioning as separate establishments/cadres and that no common seniority list of
employees of all the District Forums was maintained.
12. Learned counsel further submitted qua the claim against the
respondent No.4, that the private respondent was borne on the State Commission
cadre, having been transferred from District Forum whereas the petitioner was still
working as Clerk in the District Consumer Forum, Ropar. Therefore, when the
post of Senior Assistant fell vacant in the State Commission, respondent No.4 was
within the relevant field of consideration, while the petitioner was not. It was
further contended that respondent No.4 was considered and promoted and that her
promotion, therefore, suffered from no legal infirmity. The respondents also
disputed the petitioner’s assertion of inter se seniority, contending that her
seniority based on service in the District Forum could not be pressed against an
employee of the State Commission cadre. 
13. It was also contended that the petitioner’s subsequent appointment as
Senior Assistant in the year 2008 was pursuant to a separate order and on a
different basis, and could not retrospectively invalidate the promotions made in
the years 2000-2001.
14. No other contention has been raised by Counsel for both the parties.
15. Arguments were heard and the judgement was kept reserved on
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -6-
12.08.2026.
Question of Law
Whether, in the absence of specific service rules, the respondents could
promote the petitioner’s juniors by adopting an undefined and non-
uniform criterion, without fairly considering the petitioner’s seniority
and claim for promotion?
Analysis
16. Having heard the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and
carefully perusing the material, t he controversy in the present petition concerns the
legality of the promotions made to the post of Senior Assistant in the Punjab State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, particularly the promotion of
respondent No. 3 by order dated 21.01.2000 and that of respondent No. 4 by order
dated 23.03.2001, without consideration of the petitioner’s claim notwithstanding
the fact that she had entered service earlier than the private respondents.
17. It has been admitted by the respondent-Department that there are no
specific service rules framed for regulating the recruitment and conditions of ser-
vice of employees of the State Commission or the District Consumer Forums. The
absence of such rules, however, does not leave the matter of promotion entirely to
the discretion of the administrative authority. The service conditions of employees
holding Group A, Group B and Group C posts in connection with the affairs of the
State of Punjab are regulated by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, (in short as “1994 Rules”) subject to the ap-
plicability of any special statutory rules governing the particular service. Rule 1(3)
of the 1994 Rules extends their application to posts in Group A, Group B and
Group C services in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab.
18. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Steno Typist by order
dated 05.09.1994 issued by the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, and was pos-
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -7-
ted in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar. The respondents
have not demonstrated that the post held by the petitioner was governed by any
separate statutory recruitment rules which excluded the operation of the 1994
Rules. In the absence of such material, the general service framework under the
1994 Rules must govern the question of her eligibility and the general conditions
of service.
19. The Court, therefore, proceeds on the basis that, in the absence of ap-
plicable special service rules for the posts in question, the general provisions of
the 1994 Rules govern the petitioner’s claim. This conclusion is confined to the
service conditions and promotional eligibility in issue in the present case.
Qualification prescribed for promotion under the 1994 Rules
20. The rule 14-A of the 1994 Rules deals specifically with the minimum
educational and other qualifications for appointment to the post of Senior Assist-
ant. The relevant provision is as hereunder for reference:-
'14A. Minimum Educational and other Qualifications for appoint-
ment to the post of Senior Assistant Direct Appointment No person
shall he given direct appointment to the post of Senior Assistant un-
der the Punjab Government unless he --
(i) Possesses the Bachelor's Degree from a recognised University or
Institution; and
(ii) Qualities in the competitive test specified by the appointing au-
thority from time to time; and
(iii) Possesses at least one hundred and twenty hours Coarse with
hands on experience in the use of Personal Computer or Information
Technology in Office Productivity applications or Desktop Publish-
ing applications from a Government recognised institution or a re-
puted institution, which is ISO 9001, certified. OR Possesses a Com-
puter Information Technology Course equivalent to '0' level certific-
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -8-
ate of Department of Electronics Accieditation of Computer Course
(DOEACC) of Government of India.
(2) The person so appointed as Senior Assistant in terms of the Pro-
visions of sub-rule (1), shall have, before his appointment,ffpassed a
test in English and Punjabi, respectively,] typewriting on computer to
be conducted by the Board or the appointing authority or the Depart-
ment of Information Technology, as the case may be, at a speed of
thirty words per minute: Provided that where appointment of Group
'B' non-technical post is offered to a War Hero, who has been dis-
charged from Defence Services or dependent member of his family
under the instructions issued in this behalf by the Government, the
educational qualifications to be possessed by such person shall be
Graduate from a recognised University or Institution. However, such
person shall not be required to qualify the test in Punjabi type-writ-
ing as Provided in subrule (2).
Promotion From amongst the clerks:-
who have an experience of working as such for a minimum period of
five years.
21. It draws a clear distinction between direct appointment and promo-
tion. While the direct appointment column prescribes a Bachelor's degree and
other stipulated qualifications, the promotion column provides for appointment
from amongst Clerks having the prescribed experience of working as such.
22. By notification dated 13.09.2019, the period of experience prescribed
in the promotion column was substituted from five years to four years, with retro-
spective effect from 04.05.1994. The amendment is being expressly retrospective
and applies to the relevant period in the present case. The provision governing
promotion does not prescribe graduation as an eligibility qualification.
23. The distinction drawn in Rule 14-A between direct appointment and
promotion is deliberate. The educational qualification of graduation, which is ex-
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -9-
pressly stipulated for direct appointment, has not been incorporated in the column
dealing with promotion from amongst Clerks. The Court cannot read into the latter
a condition which the rule-making authority has consciously not prescribed as the
rule of interpretation applicable in such circumstances is that the provision must
be read as a whole, and effect must be given to the language employed by the rule-
making authority. In  Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta , (2005) 2 SCC 271 , a Con-
stitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that where the language of a provision
is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its natural and ordinary meaning. Rel-
evant extract is as under:
11. The interpretative function of the Court is to discover the true legislat-
ive intent. It is trite that in interpreting a statute the Court must, if the
words are clear, plain, unambiguous and reasonably susceptible to only
one meaning, give to the words that meaning, irrespective of the con-
sequences. Those words must be expounded in their natural and ordinary
sense. When a language is plain and unambiguous and admit of only one
meaning no question of construction of statute arises, for the Act speaks for
itself. Courts are not concerned with the policy involved or that the results
are injurious or otherwise, which may follow from giving effect to the lan-
guage used. If the words used are capable of one construction only then it
would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construc-
tion on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the al-
leged object and policy of the Act. In considering whether there is ambigu-
ity, the Court must look at the statute as a whole and consider the appropri-
ateness of the meaning in a particular context avoiding absurdity and in-
consistencies or unreasonableness which may render the statute unconstitu-
tional.
12. It is equally well settled that in interpreting a statute, effort should be
made to give effect to each and every word used by the Legislature. The
Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for
a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute
should have effect. A construction which attributes redundancy to the legis-
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -10-
lature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons such as obvious
drafting errors. 
24. In the case at hand, the petitioner had entered service in September
1994. By the time the vacancy in question was proposed to be filled in the year
1999–2000, she had completed more than four years of service as a Clerk. Her eli-
gibility under the experience requirement of Rule 14-A is, therefore, established,
subject to the other applicable conditions of service and suitability. However, the
Commission issued communication dated 27.07.1999, Annexure R-5, stating that
a post of Senior Assistant was likely to fall vacant and was proposed to be filled
by promotion from amongst Clerks of the District Forums. The communication
prescribed graduation from a recognised University and a minimum of five years’
experience as a Clerk, including at least two years in the State Commission or a
District Forum. A further communication dated 04.01.2000, Annexure R-6, again
invited applications for the post and reiterated the requirement that the candidates
should be graduate Clerks having the stipulated experience.
25. This Court cannot overlook the fact that though, in the absence of de-
tailed procedural rules, the Commission could certainly prescribe a fair procedure
for inviting applications, obtaining service records, assessing suitability and con-
ducting an interview, provided that such procedure remained consistent with the
governing statutory framework, it could not introduce an additional substantive
qualification of graduation for promotion when Rule 14-A of the 1994 Rules did
not originally prescribe.
26. Consequently, where the petitioner fulfilled the experience require-
ment prescribed for promotion from amongst Clerks, , the absence of a Bachelor's
degree could not, by itself, constitute a lawful ground for excluding her from con-
sideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant.
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -11-
27. The legal position is settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in “ Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910” wherein
it was observed that executive instructions may fill gaps where the statutory rules
are silent but they cannot amend, supersede or supplant the statutory rules. The
power to supplement the rules cannot be converted into a power to alter the condi-
tions of eligibility prescribed by them. The relevant extract of the same is repro-
duced as under:
7. ….. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that there
is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion
of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not
mean that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government can-
not issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed
in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true
that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory Rules by adminis-
trative instructions but if the rules are silent on any particular point Gov-
ernment can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions
not inconsistent with the rules already framed.
28. In the present case, the administrative communications did not
merely prescribe the manner in which eligible employees were to be assessed.
They imposed graduation as a condition precedent to consideration for promotion.
Insofar as they did so, they travelled beyond the permissible limits of executive in-
structions and were inconsistent with Rule 14-A of the 1994 Rules.
29. The respondents cannot derive authority for imposing such a condi-
tion merely from the fact that the Commission had not framed its own service
rules. The absence of specific rules does not enlarge the administrative authority’s
power to prescribe qualifications contrary to the applicable general service rules.
The administrative authority is required to act within the governing legal frame-
work it.
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -12-
30. Therefore, the communications dated 27.07.1999 and 04.01.2000
could validly regulate the procedural aspects of the selection, but the requirement
of graduation, insofar as it was applied as an additional eligibility condition for
promotion, could not lawfully exclude an otherwise eligible and senior employee
working as a Clerk and falling within the zone of consideration.
31. The right to be considered for promotion, where the employee is eli-
gible under the applicable rules, forms part of the guarantee of equality in public
employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right is not neces-
sarily a right to promotion in every case but it is, at the minimum, a right to fair
and lawful consideration in accordance with the governing rules. The principle
stands recognised by the Apex Court in  Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab , (1999)
7 SCC 209.
32. Furthermore, it is borne from the record that the petitioner entered
service on 05.09.1994 and joined the District Forum, Ropar, in the year 1994. Re-
spondent No. 4 joined the District Forum, Gurdaspur, in 24.04.1995 , while re-
spondent No. 3 joined the District Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib, in 16.01.1997 . Thus, it
is not in dispute that the petitioner was senior to both private respondents in length
of service.
33. The obligation of fairness upon the respondents was all the more sig-
nificant because the vacancy was thrown open to Clerks serving in the 17 District
Consumer Forums across the State. Having chosen to draw eligible candidates
from a common pool of employees working under its administrative establish-
ment, the Commission was expected to put in place a transparent and uniform
mechanism for identifying their relative claims, including, where seniority was to
be relevant, the preparation of a common seniority list or an equivalent objective
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -13-
comparative record. No such exercise is shown to have been undertaken. The Rule
8 of the 1994 Rules becomes significant here and the same is as under:
8. Seniority - The seniority inter se of persons appointed to posts in
each cadre of a Service shall be determined by the length of continu-
ous service on such post in that cadre of the Service. Provided that in
the case of persons recruited by direct appointment who join within
the period specified in the order of appointment or within such
period as may be extended from time to time by the appointing au-
thority subject to a maximum of four Months from the date of order
of appointment the order of merit determined by the Commission or
the Board, as the case may be, shall not be disturbed: Provided fur-
ther that in case a person is permitted to join the post after the expiry
of the said period of four months in consultation with the Commis-
sion or the Board, as the case may be, his seniority shall be determ-
ined from the date he joins the post: • Provided further that in case
any person of the next selection has joined a post in the cadre of the
concerned Service before the person referred to in the preceding pro-
viso joins, the person so referred shall be placed below all the per-
sons of the next selection who join within the time specified in the
first proviso: Provided further that in the case of two or more per-
sons appointed on the same date, their seniority shall be determined
as follows:- (a) (b) (c) (d) a person appointed by direct appointment
shall be senior to a person appointed otherwise; a person appointed
by promotion shall be senior to a person appointed by transfer; in the
case of persons appointed by promotion or transfer, t he seniority
shall be determined according to the seniority of such persons in the
appointments from which they were promoted or transferred; and in
the case of persons appointed by transfer from different cadres their
seniority shall be determined according to pay, preference being
given to a person who was drawing a higher rate of pay in his previ-
ous appointment; and if the rates of pay drawn are also the same,
then by their length of service in these appointments and if the length
of service is also the same, an older person shall be senior to a
younger person:
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -14-
' [Provided further that in the case of persons recruited by direct ap-
pointment in the same cadre obtaining equal marks during same se-
lection process, their inter-se-seniority shall be determined on the
basis of their age. That is, an older person shall be senior to the
younger person.] Note:- Seniority of persons appointed on purely
provisional basis or on ad hoc basis shall be determined as and when
they are regularly appointed keeping in view the dates of such regu-
lar appointment.
34. A perusal of the rule shows that for determination of inter se seniority
of persons appointed to posts in each cadre by reference to the length of continu-
ous service on such post in that cadre, subject to the provisions contained therein.
The respondents cannot invite employees from different District Forums to com-
pete for a common promotional vacancy, yet leave their relative positions inde-
terminate. The failure to evolve a fair and uniform mechanism was a failure of the
very administrative responsibility which the respondent-department owed to its
employees.
35. This Court is of the opinion that an employer in public service is not
merely the authority that makes appointments; it is also the custodian of a fair and
predictable service structure. Employees serving in different units under its admin-
istrative control are entitled to expect that opportunities for advancement will be
administered with fairness, consistency and transparency. The absence of a com-
mon seniority framework, coupled with the imposition of an unauthorised educa-
tional qualification, rendered the process arbitrary and offended the guarantee of
equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Promotion of respondent No. 3
36. A perusal of the material placed on record shows that the appoint-
ment letter dated 21.01.2000 (Annexure R-7) expressly describes respondent No.
3’s appointment as one “by promotion” and invokes the Punjab Civil Services
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -15-
(General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 in relation to proba-
tion. This contemporaneous record cannot be displaced by the respondents’ sub-
sequent attempt to characterise the appointment as direct recruitment or a merit-
based selection. Its legal character must be determined by the terms and substance
of the appointment order.
37. Having adopted the promotional route, the Commission was bound
by the eligibility conditions applicable to promotion as per the 1994 Rules and it
could not import the educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment.
Although the vacancy was circulated amongst the District Forums and respondent
No. 3 was selected after an interview, the Commission has shown no statutory rule
authorising graduation as an additional condition for promotion, nor any uniform,
binding promotional framework justifying the petitioner’s exclusion.
38. Thus, the selection of respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained as against
the petitioner merely on the ground that he was a graduate and she was not.
Graduation, in the circumstances, was not a lawful basis for excluding the peti-
tioner from consideration.
39. This Court cannot overlook the fact that the respondents pleaded that
the petitioner had no promotional avenue in her respective cadre, while asserting
that the State Commission constituted a separate cadre to which the petitioner did
not belong. That stand must, however, be examined alongside the subsequent
events. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 28.11.2008, despite
the educational disqualification now relied upon to deny her consideration for the
same post. Further, the written statement itself records that respondent No. 4, who
joined service one year subsequent to the petitioner, and had passed only B.A. Part
II, was promoted as Senior Assistant by order dated 23.03.2001 and there-
after as Superintendent Grade-II. These facts materially weaken the respondents’
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -16-
plea that graduation was an indispensable qualification for promotion to the post
of Senior Assistant. The respondents cannot selectively rely upon an eligibility
condition to deny consideration to one employee while overlooking them in the
case of others, demonstrating an inconsistent application.
Distinct Cadres
40. The respondents seek to distinguish the two establishments on the basis of
separate cadres so as to defeat the claim of the petitioner’s seniority by length of
service. It is trite law that a cadre has a definite legal meaning in service
jurisprudence and it depends upon the service structure and the posts comprised
therein, and that interchangeability of incumbents, nature of duties, responsibilities
and other relevant conditions are material in determining whether posts constitute
a common cadre.
41. In the case at hand, having admitted the absence of specific service
rules governing the service conditions at the relevant time, the respondent-
department failed to demonstrate the service framework under which the petitioner
and the private respondents were placed in distinct cadres and, more importantly,
the manner in which such cadre distinction governed their promotional avenues to
the post of Senior Assistant. The respondent-department have attempted to
establish the distinction between cadres in the absence of service rules specifically
by merely describing the State Commission and the District Fora as separate
establishments, which is not permissible as cadre is not merely a label but has
legal consequences. The Court is conscious that the administration may, in an
appropriate case, constitute separate cadres and may prescribe different
promotional avenues for them. The law does not prohibit such an arrangement.
But once a separate cadre is asserted as the basis for denying an employee
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -17-
consideration, the distinction must have a demonstrable foundation in the
applicable service structure.
42. Moreover, from the material placed on record, it is noted that the
promotions of respondents No.3 and 4 were not shown to have been made
pursuant to one consistently applied promotional rule. Different criteria were
relied upon at different stages. The promotion of respondent No.3 was dealt with
in one factual and procedural setting while respondent No.4’s promotion followed
a different course as she was granted promotion merely on the basis of her having
been transferred to the State Commission and being under the State Commission
cadre was within the relevant field of consideration . The respondents assert that
the respondent no. 4 belonged to the State Commission cadre, whereas the record
indicates that she had initially joined a District Consumer Forum. The respondents
were, therefore, required to disclose the order and legal basis by which she came
to be borne on the State Commission cadre, and the service arrangement under
which she became eligible for the promotional vacancy. The mere assertion that
she was on the State Commission cadre does not resolve this factual and legal
issue.
Constitutional requirement of fairness
43. The power of a public authority to regulate appointments and
promotions is not unfettered. It must be exercised consistently with the governing
rules and the constitutional guarantee of equality. The State and its
instrumentalities are required to adhere to the norms governing the selection
process and cannot depart from them arbitrarily as held by the Supreme Court in
RD Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489 .
44. The Commission, having invited District Forum Clerks for
promotion, was required to consider all eligible employees falling within that
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -18-
category in accordance with the applicable rules. The petitioner could not be
excluded by an additional educational condition unsupported by the governing
rule. The denial of consideration has affected the petitioner’s right to equality of
opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
45. Even though the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of
Senior Assistant in the year 2008, this subsequent promotion does not, by itself,
establish her entitlement in the year 2000 but it demonstrates that she was ulti-
mately found fit to discharge the duties of the post.
46. Having regard to the petitioner’s eligibility, the absence of any lawful
basis for imposing graduation as a condition for promotion, and the failure of the
respondents to establish any independent ground of unsuitability, this Court is of
the view that the plea of the respondents regarding the existence of distinct cadres,
even if accepted, does not justify the denial of fair consideration to the petitioner
for promotion. While the existence of distinct cadres may preclude a claim to
promotion based solely on comparative length of service, it does not absolve the
respondents of their obligation to demonstrate a lawful basis for excluding the
petitioner from consideration in the first place.
Conclusion
47. In view of the foregoing discussion, the the promotion of respondent
No. 3 to the post of Senior Assistant, vide order dated 21.01.2000, and the sub-
sequent promotion of respondent No. 4 to the said post, vide order dated
23.03.2001, are held unsustainable insofar as they resulted in denial of lawful con-
sideration to the petitioner for promotion.
48. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. However, the past ser-
vice rendered by the private respondents shall not, however, be disturbed, and no
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -19-
recovery shall be effected from them on account of the relief granted by way of
this order.
49. The respondents are hereby directed to grant the petitioner deemed
promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 21.01.2000, i.e. the date
on which respondent No. 3 was appointed to the said post. The petitioner shall
further be entitled to notional promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II
with effect from 13.02.2001, i.e. the date on which respondent No. 3, her junior,
was promoted to the said post, together with consequential refixation of pay and
revision of retiral and pensionary benefits.
50 For the purpose of implementation, the respondents shall:
(i) treat the petitioner as having been promoted to the post of Senior
Assistant with effect from 21.01.2000 and to the post of Superintend-
ent Grade-II with effect from 13.02.2001;
(ii) re-fix her pay in the promotional post from the aforesaid date, by
granting the increments and other admissible service benefits and
monetary arrears in accordance with law;
(iv) re-calculate the retiral benefits, including pension and other pen-
sionary entitlements, on the basis of the revised pay and qualifying
emoluments consequent upon the deemed promotion; and
(v) release the consequential monetary benefits, including the admiss-
ible difference in pay and pension, after carrying out the requisite fix-
ation and adjustment.
51. The entire exercise, including pay fixation, revision of pension and
release of consequential monetary benefits along with interest @8% per annum,
shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certi-
fied copy of this judgment.
52. Considering that the petitioner has spent 25 years pursuing her claim
in the present petition, it is observed that in the event of failure to release the ad-
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-813-2002
CWP-15390-2001 and -20-
missible monetary benefits within the aforesaid period, the unpaid amount shall
carry interest at the rate of  12% per annum  from the expiry of the stipulated
period until actual payment.
53. Consequently, both writ petitions are hereby allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
54. Pending application(s), if any shall be disposed of, accordingly.
55. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case(s).
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
05.11.2026
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANURADHA
2026.11.05 17:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document