CWP-22751-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP-22751-2015 (O&M) BHUPINDER KUMAR AND ANR. ..Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ..Respondents (2) CWP-26101-2015 (O&M) RANA PARTAP MITTOO ..Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ..Respondents (3) CWP-2370-2016 (O&M) BALBIR SINGH AND ORS. ..Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ..Respondents Reserved on: 21.07.2026 Pronounced on : 22.07.2026 Uploaded on : 24.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The challenge in the above referred writ petitions is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to finalize and determine the MOHD AYUB 2026.07.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22751-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases -2- number of vacancies for promotion to the post of S.D.E. from Source No.2 pertaining to the period from 1994 to 2005 and to send the proposal to respondent No.3 for convening the meeting of the Screening Committee for considering the cases of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 01.05.2014. 2. Since the relief claimed in all the three writ petitions is identical, therefore, all the writ petitions are being decided vide this common judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that the petitioners were eligible for promotion from 1994 to 2005 but the vacancies were not determined by the respondents due to which they could not be promoted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioners in the present writ petitions are asking for retrospective promotions which cannot be granted. 5. In support of her contentions, she relies on judgment passed by this Court in CWP-13865-2012 and connected matters titled as “Sohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab through the Prinicipal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab” decided on 11.03.2025. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 7. As per the short affidavit filed by respondent-State, all the petitioners were promoted and retired upon superannuation. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22751-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases -3- 8. The issue involved in all the present writ petitions is as to whether mere delay in consideration of promotion would create a vested right for retrospective promotion. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc. , 2022 INSC 279, held as under:- “18. A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process. It is also to be borne in mind that when we deal with a case of promotion, there can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules. In other words, a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. In the present case, the authority acting within the rules has rightly granted promotion after clearance of DPC on 17.04.2012 with effect from 01.07.2011, when the actual vacancies arose, which in any case is a benefit granted to the Respondent in Civil Appeal No.518 of 2017. In our view, this exercise of power by the authority of granting retrospective promotion with effect from the date on which actual vacancies arose is based on objective considerations and a valid classification. 19. This Court in the case of Union of India v. KK Vadhera and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 has clearly laid down that the promotion to a post should only be MOHD AYUB 2026.07.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22751-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases -4- granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen, and has observed that: "5....We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion. In the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the judgment of the Tribunal." 20. Similarly, this Court in the case of Ganga Vishan Gujrati and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 16 SCC 28 has held that: 45. A consistent line of precedent of this Court follows the principle that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne on a cadre. Seniority amongst members of the same grade has to be counted from the date of initial entry into the grade. This principle emerges from the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22751-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases -5- Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715. The principle was reiterated by this Court in State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334 and State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007) 1 SCC 683. In Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267, this Court revisited the precedents on the subject and observed: (SCC pp. 281-82, para 45) "45. ... (i) The effective date of selection has to be understood in the context of the Service Rules under which the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the process of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement or the factum of preparation of the select list, as the case may be. (ii) Inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the Service Rules. The date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from different sources. Any departure therefrom in the statutory rules, executive instructions or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (iii) Ordinarily, notional seniority may not be granted from the backdate and if it is done, it must be based on objective considerations MOHD AYUB 2026.07.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22751-2015 (O&M) and other connected cases -6- and on a valid classification and must be traceable to the statutory rules. (iv) The seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant Service Rules. It is so because seniority cannot be given on retrospective basis when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre and by doing so it may adversely affect the employees who have been appointed validly in the meantime." This view has been re-affirmed by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao, (2013) 8 SCC 693."” 10. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam Etc., 2022 INSC 279, the petitioners have no right to retrospective promotion. 11. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 22.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.