Krishan Kumar vs Punjab Mandi Board And Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-19039-2021
Krishan Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Mandi Board and others .....Respondents
1. Reserved on : 20.08.2026
2. Pronounced on : 03.09.2026
3. Uploaded on the website : 03.09.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is : Full
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full : Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by : Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Charan Jit Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.

NAMIT KUMAR , J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court by filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the
letter/order dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure P-8), vide which respondent
No.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post
of Secretary, Market Committee, without even considering his case for
promotion to the said post, as the order dated 02.06.2020 reflects that
respondent No.3 instead of considering his case for promotion against
vacant post of Secretary, Market Committee, considered his case for
promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II and, thereafter,
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -2-
rejected the same on the ground of availability of no post of
Superintendent Grad-II with the respondent-Board till his retirement.
Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the
post of Secretary, Market Committee, with effect from 01.05.2017, i.e.,
th
from the date 12 vacancy in the cadre of Secretary, Market Committee
fell vacant, with all consequential benefits.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in
the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Typist on
16.10.1986 on regular basis in the Punjab Mandi Board and he joined
as such on 28.10.1986. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of
Senior Assistant on 21.12.2011 and lateron, vide office order dated
12.02.2015 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was given deemed date of
promotion as Senior Assistant with effect from 15.10.1992. The next
promotion from the post of Senior Assistant is to the post of Secretary,
Market Committee and the same is governed by the rules known as
‘Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class II) Service Rules,
1988’ and as per the aforesaid Rules, 60% posts in the cadre of
Secretary, Market Committee are to be filled by way of promotion and
out of slab of 60 vacancies in the quota of promotion, 15 vacancies are
to be filled amongst Senior Assistants possessing Bachelor of Arts
Degree from a recognised university and having an experience of
working as such for a minimum period of 12 years. There are 151
sanctioned posts of Secretary, Market Committee, out of which 23 posts
comes to the quota of graduate Senior Assistants. The petitioner
became eligible for promotion to the post of Secretary, Market
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -3-
Committee on 15.10.2004 from the quota of Senior Assistants, as per
the aforesaid Rules. It has further been pleaded that between 2016-
2017, 16 posts of Secretary, Market Committee of Senior Assistants
quota, who were possessing Bachelors of Arts Degree from a
recognised university and having an experience of working as such for
a minimum period of 12 years, fell vacant on the following dates:-
Sr. Name of Secretary, Post of Secretary, Market
No. Market Committee Committee falling vacant
on account of
retirement/promotion.
1. Harpinder Singh 30.04.2016 (R)
2. Ramji Dass 30.04.2016 (R)
3. Ram Niwas 30.04.2016 (R)
4. Manjit Singh 06.07.2016 (P)
5. Apinder Singh 06.07.2016 (P)
6. Devinder Singh 15.09.2016 (P)
7. Darshan Singh 31.12.2016 (R)
8. Balwinder Singh 31.01.2017 (R)
9. Jaspal Singh 28.02.2017 (R)
10. Harpiar Singh 31.03.2017 (R)
11. Satpal Singh 31.03.2017 (R)
12. Harcharan Singh Kohli 30.04.2017 (R)
13. Raghubir Singh 25.05.2017 (P)
14. Jagroop Singh 26.05.2017 (P)
15. Nirmail Singh 30.09.2017 (R)
16. Vinod Kapoor 31.12.2017 (R)
3. Despite the fact that the petitioner was fully eligible for
th
promotion to the post of Secretary, Market Committee and was 12 in
the seniority list of Senior Assistants, who were having Bachelors
Degree in Arts and had 12 years of service to their credit, however, the
respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to
the post of Secretary, Market Committee. Aggrieved thereby, the
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -4-
petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure P-6),
claiming promotion to the post of Secretary, Market Committee, and
Superintendent Grade-II, however, no action was taken by the
respondents on the said representation and the petitioner retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2018. He again
submitted a representation dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure P-7) seeking
same relief, however, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was
rejected by respondent No.3, vide order dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure P-
8) without even considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to
the post of Secretary, Market Committee. It is the said order which has
been impugned by the petitioner in the present petition.
4. Reply by way of an affidavit of Dalwinderjit Singh, PCS,
Additional Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, SAS Nagar, on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 3 has been filed, wherein it has been stated as
under:-
“xx xx xx xx xx
5. That earlier, the minimum experience required for
promotion from the post of Senior Assistant to the Post of
Secretary Market committee was of 12 years service as
Senior Assistant. The petitioner was promoted as Senior
Assistant on 21.12.2011 and retired from the post of
Senior Assistant on 31.07.2018. Therefore, it is crystal
clear that he did not fulfill the above said necessary
condition of 12 years of experience which was sine-qua
non for promotion to the post of Secretary. Therefore, his
entire claim to the post of Secretary is baseless without
any rhyme or reasons and it is also illegal.
It would further be apt to submit here that the
relevant Service Rules were amended on 08 October, 2018
and as per the amended Rules the minimum experience
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -5-
required for promotion from Senior Assistant to the post of
Secretary is of seven years in place of above said 12 years
of experience. Therefore, irrespective of this fact that
whether any vacant post of Secretary was available or not
the present petitioner in no manner could be promoted as
Senior Assistant as the law of the day when he retired on
31.07.2018 the required experience was of 12 years and
not of 7 years and he did not fulfill this condition of 12
years of experience. The copy of the notification dated
08.10.2018 amending the above said rules has been
attached herewith as Annexure-R-1/2
6. That it is pertinent to mention here that in this
Seniority list the name of petitioner figured at Sr. No 86
and other employees who were senior to petitioner and
were figured at Sr. No.80, 81, 82, 83, 84 in the seniority
list were squarely covered under the amended rules and
were promoted on 5.12.2018 and 14.2.2019 after
completing required experience of 7 years and i.e after
retirement of petitioner. Moreover the employees who
were junior to petitioner i.e. Harpreet Kaur at Sr. No.88,
Tilak Raj at Sr. No.89 and Kulwinder Kaur who was at
Sr.No.92 in the Seniority List were also promoted on
14.2.2019 after completing condition of 7 years. Whereas,
when the petitioner retired, the 12 years of experience was
requirement under the un-amended rules. In no manner he
could be promoted as Secretary Market Committee
Therefore, it is absolutely irrational, unreasonable and
illegal on the part of the petitioner to claim any kind of
parity to the above said employees.
7. That, petitioner could only be considered by the
respondent for promotion to the post of Superintendent
Grade-Il because he fulfilled the minimum required
condition of five years of service as Senior Assistant. But,
because of the non availability of vacancy of the
Superintendent Grade-II with the respondent Board the
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -6-
petitioner could not be promoted. Therefore, the petitioner
was granted the ACP pay step up on 4 years of service as
Senior Assistant vide office order w.e.f. 22.12.2015 vide
office letter No.1150 (2016) dated 19.09.2016 and thus
was given absolute legal treatment by the respondent in
accordance to the Rules and norms.
Xx xx xx xx xx”
5. In nutshell, the stand taken by the respondents is that
minimum qualifying experience required for promotion from the post of
Senior Assistant to the post of Secretary, Market Committee was 12
years as Senior Assistant under the un-amended rules and since the
petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 21.12.2011 and retired
from service from the post of Senior Assistant on 31.07.2018, therefore,
he had not completed the requisite 12 years experience till the date of
his retirement, which was sine qua non for promotion to the said post. It
has further been stated that the said Rules were amended on 08.10.2018
(Annexure R-1/2) and as per the amended Rules, the minimum
experience required for promotion from Senior Assistant to the post of
Secretary, Market Committee, was reduced from 12 years to 07 years.
However, the said amendment was made after the retirement of the
petitioner and could not confer any right of promotion upon him. It was
further stated that the petitioner's name figured at Sr. No.86 in the
seniority list of Senior Assistants and other employees, who were senior
to the petitioner and figured at Sr. Nos.80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 in the
seniority list, were promoted on 05.12.2018 and 14.02.2019 under the
amended rules and after completing required experience of 07 years,
i.e., after the retirement of the petitioner, whereas, the employees,
junior to the petitioner, i.e., Harpreet Kaur (Sr. No.88), Tilak Raj (Sr.
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -7-
No.89) and Kulwinder Kaur (Sr. No.92) were promoted on 14.02.2019.
All these promotions were made as per the amended Rules, whereby the
experience clause was reduced from 12 years to 07 years, whereas,
when the petitioner retired, 12 years of experience was required under
the un-amended rules.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Secretary,
Market Committee, however, his claim for the said promotion has not
even been considered by the respondents and vide order dated
02.06.2020 (Annexure P-8), his claim for promotion from the post of
Senior Assistant to that of Superintendent Grade-II has been considered
and rejected on the ground that before the retirement of the petitioner
on 31.07.2018, there was no vacant post. He has further submitted that
since the petitioner attained eligibility for promotion to the post of
Secretary, Market Committee, with effect from 15.10.2004 when he
completed 12 years of service as Senior Assistant as he was granted
deemed date of promotion as Senior Assistant with effect from
15.10.1992 and, therefore, he was entitled to be promoted to the said
th
post against 12 vacancy in his quota which has arisen on 30.04.2017
and, therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider his claim
for promotion to the said post with all consequential benefits.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents, while
referring to the averments made in the written statement, has submitted
that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.07.2018 and no person junior to him was
promoted prior to his retirement and mere occurrence of vacancy in his
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -8-
quota does not confer any right of promotion to him.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
9. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner initially
joined the service as Typist on 16.10.1986 on regular basis and was
further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 21.12.2011 and vide
order dated 12.02.2015 (Annexure P-1), he was granted deemed date of
promotion as Senior Assistant with effect from 15.10.1992.
Consequently, on completion of 12 years of service as Senior Assistant,
he became eligible for promotion to the said post on 15.10.2004, as per
‘Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class II) Service Rules,
1988’. Although, the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the
post of Secretary, Market Committee on completion of 12 years of
service on 15.10.2004, keeping in view his deemed date of promotion
as Senior Assistant, however, various persons senior to the petitioner
were awaiting promotion as he was at Sr. No.86 in the seniority list of
Senior Assistants. Moreover, the persons senior to him at Sr. No.80 to
84 were promoted on 05.12.2018 and 14.02.2019 and persons junior to
him, namely Harpreet Kaur (Sr. No.88), Tilak Raj (Sr. No.89) and
Kulwinder Kaur (Sr. No.92), were promoted on 14.02.2019, only after
the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner could only be considered
for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, as he fulfilled the
minimum required condition of 05 years of service as Senior Assistant.
However, as no vacancy was available, he could not be promoted and
was accordingly granted ACP step-up on completion of 04 years
service as Senior Assistant, w.e.f. 22.12.2015, in accordance with
VINAY
applicable rules.
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -9-
10. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming promotion to
the post of Secretary, Market Committee w.e.f. 01.05.2017, i.e., the date
th
on which the 12 vacancy in the cadre of Secretary, Market Committee,
fell vacant. However, the petitioner could not be considered against the
said vacancy as persons senior to him at Sr. No.80 to 84 in the seniority
list of Senior Assistants, were available and eligible for promotion. The
law is well-settled that an employee cannot seek promotion from the
date of occurrence of vacancy or on account of acquiring eligibility on
the promotional post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar State
Electricity Board and others Vs. Dharamdeo Das : 2024 SCC Online
SC 1768 , has held that promotion is effective from the date it is actually
granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject
post or when the post is created. Promotion becomes effective only
upon the actual assumption of duties, rather than the date of occurrence
of vacancy or recommendation. While employees have a right to be
considered for promotion, they have no fundamental right to promotion
itself, nor to retrospective promotion. The relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment are thus :-
“18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is
effective from the date it is granted and not from the date
when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the
post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered
for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a
statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same
time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In
this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. Arvind Rai (2022) 12 SCC 579
where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift
Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty
and Others (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh and Others
vs. State of Punjab and Others (1999) 7 SCC 209 , a
three Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis
VINAY
on right to be considered for promotion to be a
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -10-
fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy,
J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat
Kiran Mohanty and Others in para 4 of the report
which is reproduced below:
“4.....There is no fundamental right to
promotion, but an employee has only right to
be considered for promotion, when it arises,
in accordance with relevant rules. From this
perspective in our view the conclusion of the
High Court that the gradation list prepared by
the corporation is in violation of the right of
respondent-writ petitioner to equality
enshrined under Article 14 read with Article
16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-
writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the
same is obviously unjustified.
xx xx xx xx xx”
21. In Nani Sha and Others vs. State of Arunachal
Pradesh and Others : (2007) 15 SCC 406 , it was observed
that mere existence of a vacancy is not sufficient for an
employee to claim seniority and the date of actual
appointment has to be in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. In Dinesh Kumar Sharma (supra), the
following pertinent observations were made :
“34. Another issue that deserves
consideration is whether the year in which the
vacancy accrues can have any relevance for
the purpose of determining the seniority
irrespective of the fact when the persons are
recruited. Here the respondent's contention is
that since the vacancy arose in 1995-1996, he
should be given promotion and seniority from
that year and not from 1999, when his actual
appointment letter was issued by the
appellant. This cannot be allowed as no
retrospective effect can be given to the order
of appointment order under the Rules nor is
such contention reasonable to normal
parlance. This was the view taken by this
Court in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of
Orissa : (1998) 4 SCC 456. ”
xx xx xx xx xx
30. Given the above legal position, in our view, the
Division Bench of the High Court ought to have refrained
from interfering with the findings returned by the learned
Single Judge who has rightly held that merely because the
respondent had completed the Kal Awadhi for promotion
from the post of Under Secretary to Joint Secretary, would
not necessarily entitle him for appointment from the date
VINAY
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -11-
the post fell vacant. This is not a case where the
respondent has been deprived of promotion to the next
higher post, nor is it a case where the action of the Board
was guided by any malafides or colourable exercise of
power. As noted above, the action of the Board was purely
guided by administrative exigencies. The Resolution of the
Board dated 26th December, 1991 for fixing the Kal
Awadhi was only directory in nature and cannot be treated
as statutory for the respondent to have claimed an
entitlement to promotion reckoned from 29th July, 1997,
instead of 5th March, 2003. Such a view is in consonance
with the settled legal position and cannot be faulted.”
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Chandra Sinha v.
Union of India & Ors., 2008(2) SCT 675 has held that a promotion
takes effect from the date it is granted, and not from the date the
vacancy occurs or the post is created. The operative part of the said
judgment, reads as follows:-
“7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court
that a promotion takes effect from the date of being
granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or
creation of the post vide Union of India and others v. K.K.
Vadera and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, State of
Uttaranchal and another v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma,
2007(1) SCT 393 : 2007(1) SCC 683, K.V. Subba Rao v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1988(2) SCC 201,
Sanjay K. Sinha & others v. State of Bihar and others,
2004(3) SCT 512 : 2004(10) SCC 734 etc.”
12. To the same effect is the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others
v. Tarlochan Singh and Others, 2014(3) SCT 330 , wherein it has been
held as follows:-
“19. In view of the various judgments referred to above,
we find that a person is not entitled to seek promotion from
the day vacancies arises. It is for the employer to initiate
the process of promotion and to fill up the posts, keeping
in view its requirements. The employee has no right to
claim promotion from a particular date or for a direction
that the vacancy in the promotional post should be filled
up. However, if the decision of the employer is to fill up the
promotional post is actuated by the considerations other
than administrative, such action or inaction can be
VINAY subjected to the judicial review, but there cannot be any
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-19039-2021 -12-
direction to grant promotion from the date the vacancy
arises. However, in case, an Officer is given Current Duty
Charge or promoted on adhoc basis, he shall be entitled to
the pay of the promoted post as has been held in Arindam
Chattopadhyays case (supra) and State of Haryana v.
P.K. Grover, (1983) 4 SCC 291 : AIR 1983 Supreme
Court 1060. ”
13. Lastly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in I.Chuba Jamir and
others Vs. The State of Nagaland and others, 2010(1) SCT 183 , held
that mere eligibility does not confer any right for promotion. Para 19 of
the said judgment reads thus:-
“19. We may also add here that the validity and legality of
the Government Order and the Notification effecting the
encadrement of the post held by respondent no.3 in the
PWD and Housing Department with the E and S Service
does not seem to have been squarely challenged before the
High Court. One can understand that the Court, on
scrutiny, might find that the encadrement was wrong and
illegal. In that case the Court would undoubtedly strike
down the encadrement resulting in the posting of
respondent No. 3 as Assistant Director in the E & S Service
notwithstanding the fact that the decision was taken at the
highest level in the government and the notification was
issued with the approval of the highest government
functionary. But the learned Single Judge accepted the
validity of the encadrement and yet proceeded to direct the
deemed promotion of the appellants-writ petitioners as
Assistant Directors from a date prior to the appointment of
respondent no.3 as Assistant Director. The only ground for
passing such extra ordinary order was that when vacancies
arose in the post of Assistant Director the appellants-writ
petitioners were eligible for promotion. It is elementary and
well settled that mere eligibility does not confer any right
for promotion. The direction of the learned Single Judge,
viewed from any angle was unsustainable. The Division
Bench was perfectly right in setting aside the order of the
learned Single Judge.”
14. Keeping in view the facts of the case, foregoing reasons
and the settled position of law, the present petition is hereby dismissed,
with no order as to costs.
03.09.2026 ( NAMIT KUMAR )
Vinay
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
VINAY
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2026.09.03 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment