IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CWP-13348-2021 Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Amarjeet Miglani .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Ms. Manisha Singla, Advocate and Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raghav Garg, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate (through VC) for respondent No.3. **** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.05.2018 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure P-5), vide which the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from the due date, with all consequential benefits. 2. The undisputed facts of the case, which emerge from the pleadings of the parties, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk on 18.07.1984 and, thereafter, he was made as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.01.1996, and continued to serve on the said post till VINAY 2026.07.15 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13348-2021 -2- his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013. It is pleaded that the next promotional avenue from the post of Clerk/Junior Assistant is to the post of Senior Assistant. Consequently, the petitioner submitted representations dated 12.02.2014 and 28.02.2014 seeking promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. As the aforesaid representations did not evoke any response, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P-2). However, when no action was taken by the respondents on the legal notice, he approached this Court by way of filing CWP No.4317 of 2018, which was disposed of on 22.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) with the directions to the respondents to look into the grievance unfolded by the petitioner in the legal notice dated 01.10.2015, and to take a conscious decision by passing a speaking order, within a period of three months. In compliance with the said order, the respondents have passed the orders dated 21.05.2018 and 25.05.2018 (Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively), vide which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Short reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 by way of an affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh, has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant has rightly been rejected since as per seniority list of Clerks/Junior Assistants working with the Municipal Councils/Nagar Panchayats, the name of the petitioner figures at Sr.No.469 whereas promotions have been made only upto Sr. VINAY 2026.07.15 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13348-2021 -3- No.420. 4. Separate written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed, wherein also the same stand has been taken. 5. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner initially joined as a Clerk on 18.07.1984, and was made as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.01.1996, and he retired as such on 31.01.2013. As per the stand taken by the respondents, in the seniority list of Clerks/Junior Assistants to which the petitioner belongs, the promotions to the posts of Senior Assistants have been made only upto Sr.No.420, whereas the petitioner is at Sr. No.469 in the seniority list. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that any person junior to him has been promoted. Furthermore, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013 and no such grievance was ever raised by the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Senior Assistant during the subsistence of his service. The representations dated 12.02.2014 and 28.02.2014, followed by the legal notice dated 01.10.2015, were submitted only after his retirement. The belated assertion of such a claim, in the absence of any violation of the applicable seniority or promotional norms, fails to create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. 6. This Court in Nanak Singh and others v. Punjab School Education Board and others : 2024 NCPHHC 114902, while deciding the similar issue, has held as under:- “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(4) SCT 1; Union of India and others v. Sangram Keshari Nayak, 2007(3) SCT 512 and Union of India and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, VINAY 2026.07.15 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13348-2021 -4- 2010(2) SCT 421 has held that the promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. The promotion can only be considered in terms of the rules governing the service of the employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi and others v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, 2003(1) SCT 435 has held that questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Courts to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State and similarly, it is well open and within the competence of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by additions/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service, including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate and the Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. To the same effect is a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramesh Kumar and others v. Azad Singh Clerk and others, 2015(4) SCT 218. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. S.K. Saigal and others, 2007(1) SCT 286 has held that no mandamus can be sought against the provisions of the rules. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Sumitra Devi and others, 2004(1) SCT 309.” 7. As per the settled law, an employee has no vested right of promotion and possesses only a right to be considered for promotion. In the present case, promotions to the post of Senior Assistants have been made upto Sr. No.420, whereas, the petitioner is at Sr. No.469 in the seniority list. No person junior to the petitioner has been promoted while the petitioner was in service. In such circumstances, no legal right of the petitioner can be said to have been infringed upon so as to VINAY 2026.07.15 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13348-2021 -5- warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 13.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.15 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment