Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21524 = 2026:PHHC:188915
Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Decided on: 12.10.2026
Present:
Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Siddharth Sadhu, AAG Punjab
***
Service law – Promotion – Unreserved vacancy – Senior-most Senior Assistant overlooked in favour of a much junior reserved-category employee despite availability of an unreserved vacancy – Held, petitioner entitled to promotion against the General Category vacancy.
***
Service law – Reservation – Adequate representation -- Administrative efficiency – Classification cannot be extended to defeat the fundamental right to equality, and adequate representation must be balanced with the maintenance of administrative efficiency.
***
Service law – Wrongful denial of promotion – Retirement – Subsequent retirement does not defeat an employee’s claim for relief against wrongful denial of promotion during service – Notional promotion directed from the date of superannuation, with consequential pensionary and retirement benefits and interest at 6% per annum.
***
A. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service law – Promotion – Seniority – Unreserved vacancy – Denial of promotion to senior eligible employee – Petitioner, the senior-most employee in the cadre of Senior Assistants, was overlooked for promotion to Superintendent Grade-II despite the availability of an unreserved vacancy, while a much junior employee belonging to the reserved category was promoted – State action in matters of promotion must conform to constitutional requirements of equality and non-arbitrariness – Held, the petitioner was entitled to promotion to Superintendent Grade-II against the General Category vacancy.
(Paras 10-16)
B. Constitution of India, Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 335 – Reservation – Adequate representation – Efficiency in administration – Balance between affirmative action and equality – Reservation and measures for adequate representation must operate within constitutional limits and should not undermine the fundamental right to equality – Classification cannot be extended to such an extreme as to defeat equality – The constitutional mandate of adequate representation must be balanced with the requirement of maintaining administrative efficiency – Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway)’s case (1981) 1 SCC 246 relied.
(Paras 12-14)
C. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service law – Wrongful denial of promotion – Retirement during pendency of claim – Notional promotion – Consequential pensionary benefits – Subsequent retirement does not, by itself, defeat an employee’s claim for relief where promotion was illegally and arbitrarily denied during service – Since actual promotion after retirement was not practicable, the Court directed grant of notional promotion to Superintendent Grade-II from the date of superannuation, with consequential refixation and release of pensionary and other retirement benefits, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual until actual realisation.
(Paras 17-20)
Cases referred:
1. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India (1981 (1) SCC 246.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. –
Prayer
1. The Jurisdiction of this court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order (Annexure P-8) granting promotion to Respondent no.3 illegally and further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent Grade-II with effect from 01.04.2023 i.e. the day post meant for General Category candidate fell vacant and for grant of consequential benefits of fixation of pay and payment of arrears etc. in the pay scale of Superintendent Grade-II.
Brief Facts
2. Factual matrix of the case succinctly stated are that the petitioner is the senior most in the cadre of Senior Assistants and has not been considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, when particularly a post meant for general category candidate was available, but respondent no.3, who is much junior to the petitioner and belongs to reserve category, has been granted promotion illegally despite the fact that no post meant for reserve category candidate was available as two posts meant to be filled by reserve category candidate have already been filled by Smt. Sunita Kochar and Sh. Gurdeep Singh, both belonging to reserve category. Therefore, promotion of respondent No.3 is in excess of quota of reserve category and as such impugned order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is liable to be promoted as Superintendent Grade-II against the post belonging to General Category. Despite detailed representation, the respondents no.1 and 2 have not taken any action, hence the present petition.
Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are total 11 sanctioned posts of Superintendent Grade-II in the Head Office and the same are filled up from amongst Senior Assistants on the basis of seniority. He contends that despite the fact that no post of Superintendent Grade-II reserved to be filled by reserve category was available, but respondent no.2 acting in a totally illegal manner granted promotion to respondent no.3 allegedly against a backlog post of reserve category by granting here benefit of reservation.
4. He further contends that when both the posts meant for reserve category were already filled by the Senior Assistants belonging to reserve category, then to what extent it is justified in granting promotion to respondent no.3 against the general category when her promotion was not due as per the seniority.
5. He vehemently argues that Respondent no.3 was granted promotion vide order dated 30.09.2022 and subsequently the said order was amended directing her promotion against the post of Superintendent Grade-II vacated by Sh. Daljit Singh, consequent upon his promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-I wherein Sh. Daljit Singh was never promoted against a reserve post and his promotion being against a General category was liable to be filled by granting promotion to a general category candidate. Rather, since Smt. Sunita Rani has retired from service on 31.03.2023, one post of Superintendent Grade-II fell vacant meant for General category and as such the petitioner being senior most in the cadre of Senior Assistants was entitled to grant of promotion with effect from 01.04.2023 consequent upon vacation of post by Smt. Sunita Rani but the same was granted to Smt. Supinder Kaur and the petitioner has been denied her right to promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II.
On behalf of the respondents/State
6. Per Contra, State counsel submits that Smt. Supinder Kaur(Respondent no.3), was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II against the reserve point strictly on the basis of the report of department of Social Justice, Empowerment and Minorities vide their report issued with no. Roaster Checking/ 2020/ Agri Dept/105-106 dated 15.09.2020 and further clarification given vide no. Raster Checking/ Agri Dept. 2020/109 dated 15.10.2020 of the Department of Social Justice, Empowerment and Minorities.
7. An additional affidavit dated 13.07.2026 has been filed by on behalf of Respondent no.1 and 2 submitting that petitioner have retired on 31.10.2023 therefore no cause of action survives at this stage wherein it is a settled proposition of law that no officer is entitled to retrospective promotion after retirement and the name of the petitioner was never considered for promotion.
8. No other contention has been raised by counsels for the parties.
9. Heard.
Analysis
10. The question in dispute revolves around the fact that whether the action of respondents no.1 and 2 in granting promotion to Respondent no.3, a much junior employee in the cadre of Senior Assistants and depriving petitioner, a Senior most in the cadre of Senior Assistants, of her right to promotion is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
11. In a democratic set up like ours, which is governed by rule of law, the supremacy of law is to be acknowledged and absence of arbitrariness has been consistently described as essence of rule of law. Thus, the powers have to be canalised and not unbridled so as to breach the basic structure of the Constitution. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment being the constitutional mandate has always been observed. The unquestionable authority is always subject to the authority of the Constitution. The higher the dignitary, the more objectivity is expected to be observed. It is not the intention of the court that powers should be curtailed, rather the power should be exercised only to the width of the constitutional and legal limits.
12. The Court has to ensure that, in matters relating to affirmative action by the State, the rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the individual to equality of opportunity, are not affected. A reasonable balance has to be struck so that the affirmative action does not lead to reverse discrimination.
13. It was also observed by the Apex Court in “Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India (1981 (1) SCC 246” that "care must be taken to see that classification is not pushed to such an extreme point as to make the fundamental right to equality cave in and collapse" meaning thereby, the remedy of 'reservations' to correct inherited imbalances must not be an overkill.
14. It is necessary to see that the rule of adequate representation in Article 16(4) for the Backward Classes and the rule of adequate representation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4A) do not adversely affect the efficiency in administration. In fact, Article 335 takes care to make this an express constitutional limitation upon the discretion vested in the State while making provision for adequate representation for the Scheduled Castes/Tribes. Thus, in the matter of due representation in service for Backward Classes and Schedule Castes and Tribes, maintenance of efficiency of administration is of paramount importance. For reference, Article 335 is reproduced herein below:-
“335. The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State:
Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”
15. Coming to the case at hand, the grievance of the petitioner is that she being the senior-most employee in the cadre of Senior Assistants was wrongfully overlooked for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, despite the availability of an unreserved (general category) vacancy. Conversely, Respondent No. 3, who is significantly junior to the petitioner and belongs to a reserved category, was granted promotion which according to the counsel for the petitioner is untenable given that the quota for reserved category candidates was already fully exhausted by two prior appointees, Smt. Sunita Kochar and Sh. Gurdeep Singh, both of whom belong to the reserved category.
Conclusion
16. Therefore, after going through the facts in the instant case and interpreting the spectrum of law discussed herein above, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to the promotion of Superintendent Grade II in the General Category. It is a trite that a junior reserved employee cannot claim an unreserved vacancy out of turn simply to fill a slot meant for open competition, bypassing a senior general candidate who satisfies all eligibility requirements. If the vacancy is an unreserved/ General category roaster point, a junior reserved category employee cannot ordinarily be promoted merely because he/she belongs to a reserved category, while overlooking a senior eligible category employee.
17. Since, the petitioner has been superannuated on 31.10.2023, another question to be decided before this court is that whether a retired employee is entitled to retrospective promotion?
18. It is a settled proposition of law that once an employee has been illegally and arbitrarily denied consideration for promotion while in service, the same cannot continue to be denied only because the employee has since retired on superannuation.
19. In terms of the facts of the instant case as well as the discussion made herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that the benefits of promotion that has become due in terms of enhanced pension and other retirement dues on appropriate re-fixation of pay upon notional promotion should, therefore, be extended to the petitioner by granting promotion to Superintendent Grade II notionally from the date of superannuation i.e 31.10.2023, since actual promotion of a retired employee would not be a practical proposition.
20. The petition stands allowed and respondents are directed to refix and release the pensionary benefits and other consequential benefits arising therefrom to the petitioner alongwith interest at 6% per annum from the date of its accrual to its actual realisation. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
21. Any pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Petition allowed.
********