Harbans Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc.

CWP-6162-2001 (O&M) -1& connected cases

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101+303		CWP-6162-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision :14.07.2026
Madan Gopal		..Petitioner
	Versus
State of Punjab and others		...Respondents
		CWP-6176-2001 (O&M)
Harbans Singh		..Petitioner
	Versus
State of Punjab and others		...Respondents
	CM CW	-3642-CWP-2026 in/& P-7866-2001 (O&M)
Jaswant Singh	Versus	..Petitioner

¶4

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.5

¶5

AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.20 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶6

CWP-6162-2001 (O&M) -2& connected cases

¶7

in all petitions.

¶8

¶9

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶10

CM-3642-CWP-2026 in CWP-7866-2001

¶11

Present application has been filed for placing on record replication alongwith Annexure P/11 to the written statement filed in CWP-7866-2001.

¶12

As prayed for, application is allowed.

¶13

Replication alongwith Annexure P/11 is taken on record.

¶14

Main cases

¶15

By this common order, the above mentioned three writ petitions involving the same question of law on similar facts, are being decided by this Court. The facts are being taken from CWP No.6162-2001 titled as Madan Gopal vs. State of Punjab and others .

¶16

Present writ petition(s) have been filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2001 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.1-department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (for short, ‘department’) by which, the private respondents have been promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II.

¶17

The challenge has been raised on the ground that the petitioner(s) were senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Clerk and therefore, they could not have been superseded by the private respondents while granting the promotion.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were promoted as Senior Clerks on 06.09.1990 whereas, the private respondents were appointed as Clerks in 1992 and 1994. Hence, the petitioners had to be promoted first as Superintendent Grade-II over the private respondents, which fact has not been considered by the respondent No.1-department.

¶19

AARTI SHARMA 2026.07.20 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CWP-6162-2001 (O&M) -3& connected cases

¶21

The respondents have filed reply wherein, they have categorically stated that there were six posts which were to be filled up and in the seniority of the Clerks, the seniority of the petitioner is at serial No.5.

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶23

Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the promotion of the private respondents was based upon the reservation which was granted to them being the members of the reserved category and therefore, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance with regard to said promotion.

¶24

Learned State counsel submits that from the post of Clerk/Senior Clerk/Junior Assistant, a person is promoted to the post of Superintendent GradeII and post of Senior Clerk and Junior Assistant are not promotional posts rather designated posts.

¶25

It may be noticed that once, the promotion of the private respondents was based upon the reservation, the supersession being alleged by the petitioners is incorrect. It is a settled principle of law that once, 06 posts were to be filled up and the promotion of the private respondents was based upon reservation granted to scheduled caste and backward class candidates, it is not a case of supersession based upon seniority and rather it is a case wherein, the supersession is based upon the reservation, which is permissible.

¶26

Qua the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were working as Senior Clerks whereas, the private respondents were working as Clerk and therefore, the promotion could not have been granted to the private respondents as Superintendent Grade-II without first getting the petitioners promoted to the post of Senior Clerk, it may be noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that there is any separate cadre of ‘Senior

¶27

AARTI SHARMAClerks’, which is to be filled from the cadre of Clerks. Further, a s per the 2026.07.20 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CWP-6162-2001 (O&M) -4& connected cases

¶29

respondents, the Clerks have been designated as Senior Clerks on the basis of seniority whereas the cadre remains the same hence, the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners being the Clerks should be the first ones to get promotion as Senior Clerk and, thereafter to the promoted cadre, cannot be accepted.

¶30

12 Qua the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rules which have been made applicable by the respondent-department are not correct, it may be noticed that as of now, the petitioners as well as the respondents have already retired from service since long and therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

¶31