Sushil Kumar Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sushil Kumar Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition failed and was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause (c) of the notification dated 09.10.2009, providing a separate 5% promotion quota for graduate Class-IV employees to the post of Lower Division Clerk, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Court's answer

Earmarking 5% posts of LDC for promotion amongst graduate Class-IV employees actually working in the offices, while simultaneously reserving 20% posts for Class-IV employees with lesser qualifications, constitutes a reasonable classification between Class-IV employees by the State with a particular purpose.

Ratio / Principle

Clause (c) of the notification dated 09.10.2009 is not ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and there is no reason to quash it.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-17891-2025 (O&M) (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, oral decision of 03.07.2025, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (author) with Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.): Sushil Kumar challenged Clause (c) of the notification dated 09.10.2009 — framed under Section 56(3)(vi) of the Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997 read with the Electricity Act, 2003 — revising the LDC quota: 75% direct recruitment (10+2/10+2 vocational with 50% marks or graduate), 20% promotion of matriculate/10+2 Class-IV employees, and a separate 5% promotion quota confined to graduate Class-IV employees (Peons, DMAs, Restorers, Havildars, Daftris, Photedars, Book-Binders, Safai Karamcharis, Malis, Chowkidars). Counsel argued the graduation requirement for the 5% quota was unjustified, had no nexus to the object, created an artificial classification among Class-IV employees, and enabled juniors promoted in 2009 under the graduate quota to supersede the petitioner, who was promoted only in 2016; the clause was sought to be quashed as ultra vires. The Court held that earmarking 5% posts for graduates actually working in the offices, alongside the 20% reservation for lesser-qualified employees, was a reasonable classification with a particular purpose, and that Clause (c) was not ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

117 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

CWP- 1 7891-2025 (O&M) Date o f Decision: 03.07.2025

Sushil Kuma r …Petitioner

Vs.

Haryana Vid y ut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present: M r. Vijay Deep Rathee, Advoca t e for the petitioner. ***

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

T he challenge is to the noti f ication dated on 09.10.2009 , whereby wh i le exercising the powers un d er Section 56 (3) (vi) of th e Haryana Ele c tricity Reforms Act, 1997 re a d with Electricity Act, 2003 , revising the q ualifications/share quota and c o nditions for the post of Lowe r Division Cler k (LDC) by direct recruitment a n d promotion.

E ssentially the case of the petitioner is that while 20% posts o f LDCs have b een reserved for promotion fro m amongst Class-IV employee s who are matr i culate prior to 27.08.2002 and 10+2/10+2 (vocational) prior t o 27.08.2022 a n d 5% posts have been separatel y earmarked for promotion fro m amongst the Class-IV employees who we r e holding the post of Peons , DMA’s, Re s torers, Havildars, Daftris, P h otedars, Book-Binders, Safa i Karamcharis, Malis and Chowkidars etc. w ho possess the qualification o f graduate fro m any recognized university. Th a t apart 75% posts of LDCs hav e been earmar k ed for direct recruitment wher e the qualification laid down i s

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.08 10:55 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-17891-2025 (O&M) [2]

10+2/10+2 (vocational) with 50% marks or equivalent or graduate from any board/university recognized by the Government of Haryana.

Learned counsel submits that so far as 5% posts of LDCs required to be filled by promotion amongst Class-IV employees holding the post of Peons, Restorers etc. is concerned, the higher qualification of graduation is wholly unjustified and illegal. The said provision has no nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved and further it creates an artificial classification amongst Class-IV employees who are entitled for consideration for promotion.

He submits that while 20% posts of LDCs can be filled by way of promotion from amongst Class-IV employees who are only matriculate, 10+2, there was no occasion for separately providing 5% quota for filling up the post of LDCs only for graduate and above. The same has resulted in causing discrimination between the similarly situated Class-IV employees and junior employees have been able to march over the seniors. The petitioners would have been promoted in 2009 had the qualification being same, but while his juniors were promoted in 2009 under 5% quota reserved for graduate, the petitioner was promoted in 2016, he, therefore, prays that the rule should be quashed as ultra vires .

We have considered the submission as noted above.

We notice that the State in order to consider the requirements of persons having higher qualification i.e. graduation, has earmarked 5% posts of LDCs for promotion from amongst persons who are actually working in the offices. The LDCs were required to perform their duties to certain extent may be posted at key basis having higher qualification of graduation. At the same time in order to provide avenue for promotion to even Class-IV RAJESH KUMAR employees having lesser qualification, 20% posts have been reserved. Thus, 2025.07.08 10:55 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-17891-2025 (O&M) [3]

we find that there is a reasonable classification between the Class-IV employees by the State with particular purpose. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to quash Clause(c) of the notification dated 09.10.2009 as we do not find the same to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

	(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE
03.07.2025
rajesh
	1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
	2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.08 10:55 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.