Dismissed¶18

Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2025CWP/13275/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pyare Lal v State of Haryana and Others; CWP-13275-2017; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Jagmohan Bansal J.; regular promotion as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 07.02.1979; ad hoc promotion 1979; Sports Quota 5% cap; out-of-turn promotion 10% cap; regularization of ad hoc promotions policies; order dated 27.09.2016 Annexure P-18; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; dismissed for non-representation; liberty to apply within six months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application within six months from the date of the order, if cause survives; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the petitioner. ¶18

Pyare Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Sr. No.210

¶3

CWP-13275-2017 Date of Decision:04.11.2025

PYARE LAL

…..Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present:None for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 27.09.2016, (Annexure P-18), whereby his claim for regular promotion as Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 07.02.1979 was rejected.

¶14

The petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector in 1979 on ad hoc basis. As per applicable rules, out of turn promotion cannot be more than 10% of sanctioned strength. The petitioner belonged to Sports Quota and under Sports Quota promotion cannot be beyond 5% of sanctioned strength. The State Government in terms of judgments of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court framed policies with respect to regularization of ad hoc promotions. The petitioner was extended benefit as per said policies.

¶15

Learned State counsel submits that ad hoc promotion of the petitioner was considered as per policies which were framed in terms of orders passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was given due benefit.

¶16