CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 1- 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA  

AT CHANDIGARH  

Reserved on:  24.07.2025. 

Date of pronouncement:  25.08.2025 

1. CWP No. 6374 of 2000 (O&M) 

Anil Kumar Gupta           …. Petitioner 

        versus 

The State of Haryana and others       …. Respondents 

2. CWP No. 14371 of 2020 (O&M) 

Pardeep Kumar Jain           …. Petitioner  

versus 

The State of Haryana and others       .… Respondents   

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA  

          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI  

Present:  Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.  

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, 

for the respondent-State. 

***** 

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.  

     These  two  writ  petitions  have  been  filed  primarily  assailing 

Rules 9 and 12 of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-II, Public Works 

Department (Public Health) Rules, 1966 (for short “the 1996 Rules”)  as 

ultra vires to the Constitution of India, insofar as they do not provide for 

promotion  from  the  post  of  Junior  Engineer  (Civil) to  the  post  of  Sub-

Divisional  Engineer (Civil)  upon  acquiring  the qualification of  AMIE,  as 

provided in Rule 7(3)(ii) of the Rules of 1966, from the date of acquiring the 

requisite  qualification/eligibility.  In  addition,  thereto,  an  order  passed  on 

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 2- 

18.06.2020 rejecting the claim of petitioner – Pardeep Kumar Jain is assailed 

in CWP No. 14371 of 2020. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction 

to  consider  them  for  promotion  to  the  post  of  Sub-Divisional  Engineer 

(Civil)  from  the  date  of  attaining  eligibility  i.e.  requisite  qualification  of 

AMIE. Petitioner- Anil Kumar Gupta has also prayed that he be held senior 

to respondent nos. 4 to 23 in CWP No. 6374 of 2000. Both the writ petitions 

were clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment 

after hearing learned counsel for the parties.  

2.    Petitioner  Anil  Kumar  Gupta  was  appointed  as  a Junior 

Engineer  (Civil)  on ad  hoc  basis  in  the  Public  Works  Department 

(hereinafter to be referred as ‘PWD’), Public Health Division, Haryana, on 

09.11.1982. His services came to be regularized with effect from 01.11.1986 

pursuant  to  a  government  notification  issued  on  26.08.1987.  He  acquired 

qualification of AMIE in the year 1987. Inter se seniority under the policy 

notified on 26.08.1997 was to be determined on the basis of original date of 

joining on ad hoc basis. Petitioner’s seniority was also fixed accordingly. 

Claim of those against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending were, 

however, overlooked.  

3.    Service  conditions  of  junior  engineers  in  the  Public  Health 

Branch is governed by the Public Health Branch, Junior Engineer Service 

Rules,  1966,  however,  for  promotion  to  the  post  of SDE  (Civil),  the 

provisions  of  Punjab  Service  of  Engineers  Class-II,  Rules  1966  are 

applicable.  

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 3- 

4.    In order to consider petitioners’ claim in the writ petitions, it 

would be appropriate to refer to certain provisions of the 1996 Rules, which 

are as under:- 

“6.  Recruitment to the service for Cadre and ex-cadre post 

shall be made- 

(a)   57% by direct recruitment 

(b)   43% by promotion from the following categories 

(i)  From  the  members  of  the  Haryana  PWD  Public 

Health, Junior Engineer (Engineering) service – 25% 

(ii) From Draftsmen members of the Draftsmen and 

Tracers Service - 6% 

(iii)  From  members  of  the  Draftsmen  and  Tracers 

Service possessing qualifications prescribed in appendix 

‘B’ -12% 

xx       xx       xx 

(Vide amendment dated 29.03.2004, the said percentage 

from source (ii), (iii) & (iv) has been changed to 30%, 

6% and 14% respectively) 

7. Qualifications:- no person shall be appointed to the services, 

unless he: 

(3) in case of appointment by promotion from source 4 under 

case 6(1)- 

(i)  is  a  member  of  the  Punjab  PWD  (Public  Health) 

Sectional Officers (Engineering) Service of a Draftsmen 

members  of  the  Public  Health  Branch,  Draftsmen  in 

Tracers Service; 

(ii)  possesses  any  of  the  qualification  included  in 

Appendix ‘B’ and has put in five years service in case 

he  possesses  A.M.I.E  qualifications  and  two  years 

service in case he is a degree holder; 

xx       xx       xx 

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 4- 

9.   Appointment  by  promotion-  (1)  Appointment  by 

promotion to the service shall be made on seniority-cum-merit 

basis by the Govt. in consultation with the Commission.  

However, no person shall have any right for promotion 

merely on the basis of seniority. 

xx       xx       xx 

12.  Seniority.- (1) Except as provided in Sub-rule (5) of this 

rule relating to officers appointed by transfer, the seniority of 

the members of the Service shall be determined by the order of 

their  appointment  in  service  according  to  rules  6,8  and  9 

irrespective of their date of joining:  

Provided that where the period of probation of an officer 

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. 

(2) the inter-se seniority of the members of the Service shall be 

in the order of recruitment provided under rules 6:  

Provided  that  in  case  an  officer  does  not  join  his 

appointment  within  six  months  of  the  date  of  order of 

appointment the seniority shall be determined by Govt. on an 

adhoc  basis  after  taking  into  consideration  all  the 

circumstances of the case.  

(3) The inter-se seniority within the group of direct recruitment 

shall be as in the merit grading under rule. 

(4)  The  inter-se  seniority  within  the  group  of  promoted 

officers  (from  a  particular  source)  shall  be  as  in the  list 

approved under rule 9. 

xx         xx       xx” 

5.    Petitioner  –  Anil  Kumar  Gupta  claims  that  he  had  already 

completed 5 years of requisite service as Junior Engineer when he passed the 

higher  qualification  of  AMIE  and  therefore,  he  ought  to  have  been 

considered for promotion to the post of SDE (Civil) prior to the persons who 

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 5- 

acquired such higher qualification afterwards. The petitioners place reliance 

upon  the judgments in Prithi  Singh vs Haryana  State  Electricity  Board, 

1993 (4) SCT 647; Rajpal vs Haryana State Electricity Board, 1996 (2) 

SCT 312; N. Suresh Nathan and others vs Union of India and others, 2010 

(5) SCC 692; and Parveen Gera vs Haryana State Electricity Board and 

others, 2018 (1) SLR 668.   

6. The claim of Anil Kumar Gupta is contested by the State stating

that the ad hoc services rendered on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) could

not have been counted for the purposes of considering his eligibility for

promotion. It is urged that the petitioner was regularized on 01.11.1986 and,

therefore, his 5 years of substantive service as Junior Engineer with higher

qualification of AMIE would be completed only in the year 1992.

Petitioner’s claim for promotion with effect from 1987 is accordingly

opposed by the State. It is also urged that the Service Rules do not provide

for maintaining seniority in the feeding cadre from the date of acquiring

qualification. It is also submitted that recruitment to the post of Sub-

Divisional Engineer by way of promotion is from different channels of

promotion i.e., diploma holders and degree holders, etc. under Rule 6 and,

therefore, the petitioner could be considered for promotion only under his

quota, as per the principle of seniority-cum-merit depending upon the

availability of post. The respondents further contend that none of the juniors

possessing AMIE/BE qualification has been promoted or given current duty

charge on the post of SDE. The respondents further contend that private

respondent nos. 4 to 23 are senior to the petitioner in the feeding cadre of

Junior Engineers.

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 6- 

7. So far as petitioner Pardeep Kumar Jain is concerned, he was

appointed as Junior Engineer in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell

Corporation (HSMITC) on 24.07.1981. He acquired the qualification of

Bachelor in Engineering (Civil) from Regional Engineering College,

Kurukshetra in July, 1991 as sponsored candidate from the Department. He

was sent on deputation to the Public Health Engineering Department on

08.01.1997 and was subsequently absorbed in the borrowing department on

09.12.1999. He has claimed seniority over one Ashok Yadav on the ground

that Ashok Yadav, although had obtained BE Degree in August 2007, but

has been promoted in June, 2014, whereas the petitioner has been promoted

in May, 2017, even though he had obtained BE degree in the year 1991.

8. Petitioner Pardeep Kumar Jain filed CWP No. 7311 of 2020

before this Court, wherein a direction came to be issued to the respondents

to consider his claim for promotion. Pursuant to such direction his claim

came to be considered by the department vide order dated 23.06.2020. The

respondents took note of petitioner’s absorption order dated 09.12.1999,

which contained the following stipulation: -

“He will be treated as fresh appointee in this department.

His seniority will be reckoned with effect from the date of

joining on regular basis in this department and he will be

treated junior most Junior Engineer in this Department.

He would have no right of seniority and other benefits

because of his old service in the HSMITC.”

9. Relying upon the aforesaid clause, the respondents assert that

the petitioner since has acquiesced to the order dated 09.12.1999, as such his

seniority in the feeding cadre of Junior Engineers has been fixed only from

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 7- 

09.12.1999. A notification issued by the Haryana Government on

29.03.2004 has been relied upon which provided that following percentage

would be maintained for recruitment to the post of SDE i.e., 50% by direct

recruitment, whereas remaining 50% by promotion from the following

categories: -

i) 30% from the Members of Haryana PWD, Public Health

Junior Engineers Services.

ii) 6% from Draftsmen members of Draftsmen and Tracers

service; and

iii) 14% from Haryana PWD Public Health Junior Engineer

Service and Draftsmen Members of the Draftsmen and

Tracers Service, possessing requisite qualification.

10. The notification further provides that percentage indicated

above would be maintained from time to time and any shortfall in the

category would be made good from the future vacancies. However, no

reversion/ retrenchment was to be made to facilitate filling up of such

shortfall. The notification further provides that vacancies arising due to

retirement, from promotion/ dismissal or death, etc. shall be filled from the

category to which the vacancy belongs.

11. The respondents have accordingly rejected the claim of

petitioner Pardeep Kumar Jain on the ground that the higher qualification

was already possessed by the petitioner when he was absorbed in the

department and, therefore, his promotion to the post of SDE was to be based

on the seniority of Junior Engineers in the feeding cadre. The Junior

Engineers, who were seniors to the petitioners as per the seniority list of

Junior Engineers and were possessing higher qualification and have requisite

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 8- 

experience after such higher qualification, could not be ignored. The

respondents further asserted that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 241 in

the seniority list, whereas Ashok Kumar Yadav was at Sr. No. 127. He also

possessed the higher qualification and had completed the requisite 5 years’

experience with prescribed higher qualification. Petitioner’s claim for further

promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was, therefore, rejected on the

ground that he was to retire on 30.06.2020 by when the requisite 3 years

working on the post of SDE would not be complete, as he had been

promoted as SDE only on 21.07.2017. Consequently, his claim for

promotion came to be rejected on 23.06.2020. The petitioner, therefore, has

not only assailed the order dated 23.06.2020 but has also challenged the

vires of the Service Rules as is the case in the writ petition filed by Anil

Kumar Gupta.

12. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Gupta learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Bhupender Singh learned Additional Advocate General,

Haryana.

13. Rule 6 of the 1966 Rules specifies the different sources for

appointment to the post in a fixed ratio. The Junior Engineer having 5 years’

experience of the post with higher qualification of AMIE/BE has a separate

quota for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE). Rule 7

provides for qualifications for appointment by way of direct recruitment as

well as by promotion. As per Rule 7 (3)(ii) of the 1966 Rules, an

appointment by promotion from the source under Rule 6(1) requires the

employee to possess any of the qualifications included in Appendix-B, i.e.

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 9- 

he has put in 5 years of service in case he possesses AMIE qualification and

2 years service in case he is a degree holder.

14. Rule 9 of the 1966 Rules lays down the mode of promotion as

per seniority-cum-merit. The inter se seniority of the members is determined

as per Rule 12. In case of promoted officers from a particular source, it has

to be as per the list approved under Rule 9. When the statutory Rules are

cumulatively analyzed, it becomes clear that separate seniority is not

required to be maintained of a candidate from the date of acquiring his

higher qualification. As and when the post meant for a particular category

becomes available, the senior most incumbent possessing requisite

qualification is then to be considered for promotion irrespective of the date

of acquiring the higher qualification.

15. The petitioners’ submission, that promotions ought to be made

on the basis of seniority reckoned from the date of acquiring higher

qualification alone, does not flow from the provisions of the applicable

service rules. Rule 9 read with Rules 7 and 12 of the Rules clearly postulate

that promotions are to be based on seniority-cum-merit, subject to

availability of posts and satisfaction of eligibility criteria.

16. The petitioners have assailed Rules 9 and 12 of the 1966 Rules

on the ground that they do not specifically provide for promotion of a Junior

Engineer (Civil) to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) after

attaining the higher qualification of AMIE, etc. as is provided for in Rule

7(3)(ii) of the 1966 Rules. The underline premise on which such submission

is made is that the eligibility for promotion having been acquired by the

incumbent, he becomes entitled to be promoted. This premise, however, has

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 10- 

no sanctity in law. It is by now well settled that mere eligibility does not

confer any right of promotion for the incumbent. We may refer to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in I. Chuba Jamir and others vs The State

of Nagaland and others 2009 (15) SCC 169, wherein it has been held as

under: - 

“19. We may also add here that the validity and legality of the 

Government  Order  and  the  Notification  effecting  the 

encadrement of the post held by respondent no.3 in the PWD 

and  Housing  Department  with  the  E  and  S  Service  does  not 

seem to have been squarely challenged before the High Court. 

One can understand that the Court, on scrutiny, might find that 

the encadrement was wrong and illegal. In that case the Court 

would  undoubtedly  strike  down  the  encadrement  resulting  in 

the posting of respondent No. 3 as Assistant Director in the E & 

S Service notwithstanding the fact that the decision was taken 

at the highest level in the government and the notification was 

issued with the approval of the highest government functionary. 

But  the  learned  Single  Judge  accepted  the  validity of  the 

encadrement and yet proceeded to direct the deemed promotion 

of the appellants-writ petitioners as Assistant Directors from a 

date prior to the appointment of respondent no.3 as Assistant 

Director.  The  only  ground  for  passing  such  extra  ordinary 

order was that when vacancies arose in the post of Assistant 

Director  the  appellants-writ  petitioners  were  eligible  for 

promotion. It is elementary and well settled that mere eligibility 

does not confer any right for promotion. The direction of the 

learned  Single  Judge,  viewed  from  any  angle  was 

unsustainable. The Division Bench was perfectly right in setting 

aside the order of the learned Single Judge.” 

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 11- 

17. So far as right of an employee for promotion is concerned, the

position in law is by now well settled as per which the limited right with the

employee is to be considered for promotion, and that there is no vested right

as such for promotion. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment

of the Supreme Court in P. Sakthi vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and

others, 2025 INSC 620.

18. In Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs Union of India and others 2008

(14) SCC 29, the Supreme Court has clearly held that a promotion takes

effect from the date it is granted and not from the date when the vacancy

occurs on the promoted post, or the promoted post is created. The

observations contained in para are reproduced as under: -

“7.  It  has  been  held  in  a  series  of  decisions  of  this 

Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of being 

granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy 

or creation of the post vide Union of India and others vs. 

K.K. Vadera and others 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, State of 

Uttaranchal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 

(1) SCC 683, K. V. Subba Rao vs. Government of Andhra 

Pradesh, 1988(2) SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha & others vs. 

State of Bihar and others 2004 (10) SCC 734 etc.”

19. In Union of India and another vs Manpreet Singh Poonam

etc. 2022 (6) SCC 105, the Supreme Court has held that a vacancy alone

does not give an employee the right to a retrospective promotion,

particularly when the rules for promotion include a prescribed selection

process. Promotions and related benefits are governed by the specific rules

for such posts and not by rules for a different post.

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 12- 

20. In the light of the principles settled by the Supreme Court in the

aforesaid decisions, we have no hesitation in rejecting the petitioners’

challenge to the vires of the Rules 9 and 12 of the 1966 Rules on the ground

that they do not provide for promotion on mere attaining of higher

qualification as is provided in Rule 7(3)(ii) of the 1966 Rules. The challenge

to the vires of the Rules is, therefore, rejected.

21. Coming to the issue of promotion, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta learned

counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme

Court in Shailendra Dania and others vs S. P. Dubey and others ;

2007 (5) SCC 535 to buttress petitioner’s claim for promotion. In this case

promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was from separate channels of

Junior Engineers possessing diploma and degree. 50% posts were to be filled

up by direct recruitment, while 50% were to be filled by way of promotion.

50% promotion quota was equally divided between Junior Engineers

possessing degree on completion of 3 years of service after obtaining

Engineering Degree and 8 years’ service for the diploma holders. The

Supreme Court after analyzing the service rules held that service experience

required for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of

Assistant Engineer by a degree holder in the limited quota of degree holder

Junior Engineers cannot be equated with the service rendered as a diploma

holder nor can be substituted for service rendered as a degree holder. When

the claim is made for a fixed quota, the condition necessary for becoming

eligible for promotion has to be complied with. The two channels of

promotion were held to be watertight compartments and a respective claim

for promotion had to be made with reference to its specific quota. Neither a

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 13- 

diploma holder Junior Engineer could claim promotion in the quota of

degree holder, nor can a degree holder Junior Engineer make any claim for

promotion for the quota fixed for diploma holder. This principle laid down

by the Supreme Court does not advance the cause of the present petitioners.

There is no separate quota earmarked for promotion for degree holders vis-à-

vis diploma holders. The criteria for promotion herein is seniority-cum-

merit. Thus, the promotion can be offered to those who are senior and

possess the eligibility and promotional post is available for them. It has not

been shown by the petitioners that any ineligible person junior to them is

promoted.

22. Reliance is also placed by the petitioners upon judgment of

Supreme Court in Parveen Gera’s case (supra), wherein while interpreting a

similar provision in the recruitment rules, the Court held that the eligibility

criteria for promotion has to be reckoned only from the date when AMIE

qualification is obtained. It is only the experience, obtained after passing the

higher qualification, which can be taken into consideration. This principle of

law has to be applied in the particular service rules applicable to the

petitioners. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners, to provide

for separate maintenance of seniority or for grant of promotion, on acquiring

the requisite experience with higher qualification, as a matter of right, finds

no support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case.

23. In N. Suresh Nathan’s case (supra), the question raised was

different. The Court held that seniority between the degree holders and

diploma holders for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was not

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 14- 

relevant since it was a selection post. The Recruitment Rules did not provide

that seniority-cum-merit would be the criteria for promotion.

24. Reliance is also placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in

Union of India and others vs N.R. Banerjee and others 1997 (9) SCC 287.

This decision arose out of a direction issued by the Tribunal to constitute a

Departmental Promotion Committee and to take confidential reports of the

eligible candidates for a particular year. This direction was issued as the

employees were to retire in the year 1994. Therefore, the confidential report

of 1993 was to be looked into and not the confidential reports of 1994. This

judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case.

25. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and

others vs Vipincandra Hiralal Shah 1996 (6) SCC 721, related to a distinct

exigency i.e., clubbing of vacancies of a number of years while preparing the

select list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service from the State

Civil Service. The Court endorsed the directions of the Tribunal to prepare a

separate select list for each year based on vacancies arose in that particular

year. This was a case on the facts of its own and its principles are not shown

to have any applicability in this case.

26. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh

and others vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others

2018 (4) SCT 716, also is a judgment on the facts of its own. This Court was

interpreting Regulation 9 of the Regulations 92/12 which provided for

separate channel of recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer. It was held

that 12½% quota for accelerated promotion based upon higher qualification

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 15- 

has to be filled on the basis of seniority of a candidate possessing requisite

experience for the post with higher qualification.

27. The Division Bench judgment of this Court also in CWP No.

10931 of 1990 Gian Singh vs The State of Haryana and another decided

on 18.01.2011, do not advance the cause of the petitioners urged in the

present petitions, either.

28. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon a judgment of

learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Sharma vs State of Haryana, 1996 (4)

SCT 715 wherein the petitioner has joined as Junior Engineer (Mechanical)

in Haryana PWD on 27.09.1973. He passed AMIE examination in the year

1982. Consequently, he became eligible to be considered for promotion on

01.01.1983, as against respondent no.3 and 4, although they had joined as

Junior Engineers on 17.10.1968 and 03.10.1961 but had obtained

qualification only in the year 1983 and consequently became eligible to be

considered for promotion on 01.01.1994.

29. The petitioners have also relied upon judgment of the Supreme

Court in Union of India and others vs N. C. Murali and others 2017 (13)

SCC 575, wherein it has been held that unless there is specific rule entitling

the applicants to receive promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy,

the right of promotion does not crystallize on the date of occurrence of

vacancy and the promotion is to be extended on the date when it is actually

effected.

30.    In the light of the discussions aforesaid, we have no hesitation 

coming to  the  conclusion that  the petitioners’  claim  for promotion  in the 

manner claimed in the writ petition cannot succeed. Claim for promotion 

   CWP No.  6374 of 2000                  - 16- 

will, thus, have to be reckoned based upon seniority on the post of Junior 

Engineer as well as on attaining the qualification for promotion i.e. Degree 

or Diploma, with requisite experience of working, subject to suitability. On 

this touch stone, no illegality or perversity is shown to have been committed 

by the respondents in denying the petitioners claim for promotion. It has not 

been shown on facts that any person junior to the petitioners or ineligible 

otherwise has stolen a march over the petitioners. In light of the above, the 

writ petitions are dismissed and are consigned to records.   

31.    Pending  miscellaneous  application  (s),  if  any,  also  stands 

disposed of. 

            (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA)  

                JUDGE  

25.08.2025                (KULDEEP TIWARI)  

vs                       JUDGE   

Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No 

Whether reportable      Yes/No