01Facts
The petitioners, serving in the Haryana Public Works Department (B&R), were diploma-category Draftsmen or Junior Engineers seeking promotion to Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil).
pp. 4–7The petitioner in CWP-38547-2025 was placed first in the relevant Draftsman diploma-category panels recommended by departmental promotion committees in November 2024 and June 2025, but was not promoted.
pp. 4–7The petitioners challenged the promotion order dated 21 November 2025, which promoted employees from the Degree/AMIE categories, and sought promotion with consequential benefits.
pp. 4–7One petitioner had also filed a contempt petition alleging breach of an earlier court order; the parties agreed that it would become infructuous if the writ petitions were dismissed.
p. 3, 11The Court heard the connected matters together.
p. 302Issues
i.Whether the petitioners could challenge promotions made against a separate Degree/AMIE quota when they belonged to the diploma-category quota under the applicable service rules.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 16–20ii.Whether the petitioners’ DPC recommendations and the promotion of employees in another category entitled them to promotion from the date those employees were promoted.
pp. 4–7, 10–11 · ¶ 18–2103Law Applied
Rule 6(1)(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class II, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, allocates separate promotional quotas, including 6% for members of the Draftsmen and Tracers Service and 3% for members of that service possessing the qualifications prescribed in Appendix B; the prescribed category quotas are to be maintained separately.
pp. 8–10 · ¶ 15–17Rule 12 provides for determining seniority by the order of appointment to the service, subject to its stated terms.
p. 9 · ¶ 15The Court treated employees in distinct quota categories as not interchangeable for the purpose of claiming promotion against another category’s vacancies.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 16–18Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 10Section 12
04Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioners belonged to the diploma-category quota under Rule 6(1)(b)(ii), while the private respondents’ promotions were made from the separate Appendix B qualification quota under Rule 6(1)(b)(iv).
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 16–18The impugned promotions were confined to the Degree/AMIE categories, and no person belonging to the petitioners’ category had been promoted in their place.
p. 10 · ¶ 18–20The Court therefore held that the petitioners could not challenge promotions made against a different quota or rely on their DPC recommendations to claim those promotions.
p. 10 · ¶ 18–20It also noted that the petitioners did not allege that a junior from their own category had been promoted.
p. 10 · ¶ 2005Holding
The Court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners’ claims and holding that they lacked standing to challenge promotions made from a separate category.
p. 11 · ¶ 21–22The connected contempt petition was disposed of as infructuous, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
p. 11 · ¶ 22–23The application to place respondent No. 4’s short reply on record was allowed.
p. 2Original Court PDF
Rajinder SinghvsState Of Haryana And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
