Rajinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
104+220
Rajinder Sin
State of Ha
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP
Date of De
P-38547-2025 (O&M)
ecision:- 11.11.2026
ngh
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M)
)
Devender K
State of Ha
Kumar
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
COCP-36-2026 (O&M)
)
Devender K
Anil Dahiya
CORAM: HON
Present:- Mr. A
Ms. N
Kumar
… Petitioner
Versus
a, Engineer-in-Chief and another
r ... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Abhinay Sharma, Advocate and
Nevadita Malik Sharma, Advocat
te for the petitioner.
Mr. P
for re
Mr. P
NIDHI GUPTA, J .
CM-6335-2026
This
Pardeep Sharma, Advocate
espondent No.4.
Priyavrat Prashar, Asstt. A.G. Har
ryana.
application has been filed unde
r Section 151 CPC for placing on
n
record the short r
reply of respondent No.4.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 2 -
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
Short reply of respondent No.4 is ordered to be taken on record.
CM stands disposed of.
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M)
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ or
order quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-11) whereby
junior to the petitioner and only degree-holder Draftsman have been promoted
to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil), while arbitrarily and illegally
ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner who is a diploma-holder
Draftsman and was duly recommended for promotion by the departmental
promotion committee; and for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to promote/regularize the petitioner to
the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) on the basis of recommendation of
DPC held on 18.06.2025, from the date his juniors have been promoted, with all
consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, and arrears.
CWP- 38541-2025 (O&M)
Present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, for issuance of appropriate writ or order quashing the
impugned order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-11) whereby juniors to the
petitioner and only degree-holder Junior Engineers (JEs) have been promoted to
the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil), while arbitrarily and illegally ignoring
the legitimate claim of the petitioner who is a diploma-holder Junior Engineer
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 3 -
and was duly recommended for promotion by the departmental promotion
committee; and for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to promote/regularize the petitioner to the post of
Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) on the basis of recommendation of DPC held on
18.06.2025, from the date his juniors have been promoted, with all
consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, and arrears.
COCP-36- 2025 (O&M)
Present Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 10 read with Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act with a prayer for initiating the Contempt of Court
proceedings against the respondents for willful disobeying of the order dated
23.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 38541 of 2025 (Annexure P-1) with
a further prayer for issuance of warrant of arrest of the respondents for
committing Contempt of Court and for punishing the respondents; and in the
interim the operation of Office memo no. 1119-1131 dated 02.01.2026
(Annexure P-3) in respect of the Petitioner may be stayed during pendency of
the petition in the interest of justice.
2. With the consent of ld. counsel for the parties, all the above said
petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues
involved in all the cases are identical/connected. For sake of brevity, facts are
being derived from CWP-38547-2025 titled as Rajinder Singh vs. State of
Haryana and others. The connected COCP shall also be dealt with accordingly.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 4 -
3. It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner had joined the respondent-Department of Public Works (B&R),
Haryana, on 04.06.1993 as Assistant Draftsman. The petitioner was promoted as
Draftsman (Civil) on 17.07.2001. Vide order dated 14.09.2021 (Annexure P-1),
petitioner was further promoted as Circle Head Draftsman (Civil). Vide order
dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was given current duty charge
(CDC) of the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE) (Civil). Since then, the
petitioner has been diligently discharging higher responsibilities of SDE (CDC) at
the Head Office, PWD (B&R) Branch at Chandigarh. Therefore, petitioner has an
unblemished service record.
4. Accordingly, vide Departmental Promotion Committee held on
20.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), name of the petitioner was recommended and
placed at Serial No. 1 in the category of Draftsman and Tracers Services
(Diploma Category) for further promotion to the post of SDE (Civil). However, in
the subsequent promotion order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-4), the name of
the petitioner was inexplicably omitted without assigning any reasons.
5. It is submitted that another meeting of the DPC was convened on
18.06.2025 (Annexure P-7) to prepare a fresh list of officials suitable for
promotion from JE (Civil)/Draftsman/Tracer to SDE (Civil) against vacancies
arising up to 31.12.2025. The agenda included four posts earmarked for the
Draftsman (Diploma Category). Even in the said DPC, the petitioner was found
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 5 -
suitable for promotion and was again placed at Serial No. 1 in the panel for
Draftsman (Diploma).
6. Ld. counsel contends that despite the aforesaid clear and
unambiguous recommendations of the DPC placing the petitioner at Serial No.
1, respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned promotion order dated
21.11.2025 (Annexure P-11), thereby promoting juniors of the petitioner, while
overlooking the petitioner.
7. It is submitted that a perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-
11) reveals that promotions have been granted only to Junior Engineers from
the Degree/AMIE category and Draftsman/Tracer (Degree/AMIE) category. Not a
single Junior Engineer from the Diploma category, including the Petitioner who
was at Serial No. 1 of the DPC panel, was promoted. This action of the
Respondents is patently illegal, discriminatory, and demonstrates a clear bias
against diploma-holder engineers, in violation of the applicable service rules
which provide a specific promotional quota for them.
8. It is contended that the action of the Respondents in repeatedly
ignoring the recommendations of the DPC and denying promotion to the
petitioner is wholly arbitrary and without any legal basis. The DPC is an expert
body constituted to assess the suitability of candidates, and its
recommendations cannot be discarded without cogent, valid, and recorded
reasons, none of which have been communicated to the petitioner.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 6 -
9. It is submitted that the petitioner is senior to many of the
individuals promoted vide the impugned order and previous orders. While the
petitioner is at S. No. 136 of the seniority list, his junior Respondent no. 4 listed
at S. No. 216 stands promoted vide the impugned order which is arbitrary and
deserves to be quashed. The denial of promotion to the Petitioner while
promoting his juniors constitutes a grave violation of his fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. In this regard, the petitioner has even made a representation dated
02.12.2025 (Annexure P-13) to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana,
narrating the entire sequence of events and requesting his rightful promotion,
however, to no avail.
11. Ld. counsel reiterates that the action of the respondents in not
promoting the petitioner as SDE (Civil), despite specific and repeated
recommendations of the DPC dated 20.11.2024 and 18.06.2025, is wholly illegal,
arbitrary, and unsustainable. The respondents have failed to take into account
the fact that the petitioner has been diligently discharging his services as SDE
(Civil) under current duty charge since 2024. The impugned order is
unsustainable also on account of the fact that persons junior to the petitioner
have been promoted while ignoring the petitioner. The petitioner has now
retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2025
vide order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-12).
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 7 -
12. Accordingly prays that the present writ petition be allowed and that
“a writ be issued for quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure
P-11) whereby juniors to the petitioner and only degree-holder Draftsman have
been promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil), while arbitrarily and
illegally ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner who is a diploma-holder
Draftsman and was duly recommended for promotion by the Departmental
Promotion Committee; and also a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued
directing the respondents to promote/regularize the petitioner to the post of
Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) on the basis of recommendation of DPC held on
18.06.2025, from the date his juniors have been promoted, with all
consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, and arrears.”
13. Per contra , ld. State counsel, supported by ld. counsel for private
respondent Nos. 5 and 6, has opposed the submissions of the petitioner and has
pointed out that no error can be found in the impugned order as the private
respondents who have been promoted as SDE belong to a different quota. As
such, there is no merit to the present writ petition and it deserves to be
dismissed.
14. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the
parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I
find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
15. Rule 6 and Rule 12 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II,
Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules 1965 prescribe the
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 8 -
method of recruitment to the service for cadre and ex-cadre posts, and seniority
respectively. The aforesaid Rules 6 and Rule 12 read as follows:-
“Rule 6. Recruitment of Service: (1) Recruitment to the service for
cadre and ex-cadre posts shall be made in the following manner:-
(a) 50% by direct recruitment; and
(b) 50% by promotion form the following categories: -
i) From members of Haryana Public Works Departments
Building and Roads, Junior Engineers (Engineering) Services:
30%
ii) From member of the Draftsmen and Tracers service: 6%
iii) From member of Haryana Public Works Department
Building and Roads Junior Engineers (Engineering)Service
possessing qualification prescribed in Appendix „B" :11%
iv) From members of the draftsmen and Tracers Service
possessing qualification prescribed in Appendix B": 3%
4 Note I: (i) The above percentage shall be maintained
regularly;
(ii) To cover the shortfall, if any, categories, the future
vacancies shall be filled in from that category till the shortfall
is met. However, to meet the shortfall
reversion/retrenchment shall be made;
(iii) The vacancies arising due to retirement,
promotion/dismissal or death etc. shall be filled in from the
category in which the vaconcy occurs.
Note II: (i) In case a vacancy occurs and amember of
Draftsmen and Tracers Service processing qualification
prescribed in Appendix „B" is not readily available then this
post shall be available to Junior Engineer possessing requisite
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 9 -
qualifications and the next available post shall be a available
to the member of the Draftsmen and Tracers Service having
qualifications prescribed in Appendix „B". But in doing so 3%
quota for this cadre shall not exceed in any manner."
Rule 12. Seniority: (1) Except as providedin sub-rule (5) of this rule
relating to officer appointed by transfer, the seniority of the
members of the service shall be determined by the order of their
appointment in Service according to Rule 6,8 and 9 irrespective of
their date of joining:Provided that where the period of probation of
an officer has been extended, the order of appointment shall be
deemed to have issued on a date determined by adding to the
original date the extended period of probation.”
16. It is not disputed that the petitioners in the present cases fall in the
sub-category (ii) of Rule 6(1)(b)–i.e. category of Draftsman and Tracers - from
which 6% promotions are to be made; whereas private respondent Nos. 4, 5,
and 6 fall in sub-category (iv) - category of Draftsman and Tracers possessing
qualifications as mentioned in Appendix B - from which 3% promotions have to
be made.
17. Thus, petitioners and the private respondents belong to two totally
different quotas/categories. The private respondents fall within a separate
category contemplated under Rule 6(1)(b)(iv) which carries a separate quota of
3%, i.e., the category meant for members of the Draftsmen and Tracers Service
possessing the qualifications prescribed in Appendix 'B'. Whereas, the
petitioners belong to the category envisaged under Rule 6(1)(b)(ii), i.e., the
category of members of the Draftsmen and Tracers Service, which carries a
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 10 -
separate limited quota of 6%. Clearly, both the said categories are distinct; and
operate under different quotas. Therefore, claim of the petitioner cannot be
considered against the quota meant for the private respondents, as each
category has to be maintained strictly in accordance with the prescribed
percentage under the Rules.
18. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the promotions in question
were made against specific quota (Degree/AMIE) earmarked under the aforesaid
Rules, as the private respondents fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria,
including possession of requisite higher qualification, which made them eligible
for consideration against the said quota.Vide the impugned orders, promotions
have been granted only to Junior Engineers from the Degree/AMIE category and
Draftsman/Tracer (Degree/AMIE) category. Not a single Junior Engineer or
Draftsman & Tracer from the Diploma category, which is the petitioner's
category, was promoted. Thus, promotions of the private respondents are in
accordance with the 1965 Rules.
19. Moreover, the Government, vide endorsement dated 21.11.2025,
ordered that promotion of eligible JEs (Civil) and Tracers Service to the post of
Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) be made under the Degree/AMIE category only.
The private respondents have been promoted in accordance with Government
Instructions dated 19/21.11.2025. It is also clear from the record that the
impugned promotions have been made in consonance with judicial directions as
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-38547-2025 (O&M);
CWP-38541-2025 (O&M) &
COCP-36-2026
- 11 -
well as the policy framework governing such promotions. Thus, the claim of the
petitioners is misconceived.
20. It is also pertinent that it is not the case of the petitioners that
juniors/persons belonging to the category of the petitioners, have been
promoted. As such, the present writ petitions are in fact not maintainable as the
petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the promotions of the private
respondents herein.
21. Ld. counsel for the petitioners is unable to dispute or controvert the
aforesaid position. Consequently, both the present writ petitions are dismissed .
22. Ld. Counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the dismissal
of the writ petitions, the connected COCP has been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the same is disposed of as such.
23. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( NIDHI GUPTA )
11.11.2026 JUDGE
Neelam
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 10:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document