CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 1 of 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2026 Harish Deswal and others ...Pe11oner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vikas K. Sangwan, Advocate with Ms. Monika Sangwan, Advocate for the peoners. Ms. Komal Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Peon under Arcles 226/227 of the Constuon of India has been .led by the peoner for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direcon, in the nature of Cerorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent no. 2, to the extent of refusal of the respondent no. 2 to consider the period of the retrospecve appointment of the peoners towards their promoon inspite of passing of speci.c direcons by the Ld. Single Bench of this Court in order dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed in CWP-14591-2023 tled as Amit Kumar and others Vs State of Haryana and others; AND/OR further issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus direcng the respondent no. 2 consider the peoners entled for promoon by counng their period of retrospecve DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 2 of 9 appointment as and when less meritorious candidates of the same selecon are considered for promoon for the post of Assistant in the Board. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the peoners prays that he may be permi:ed to withdraw the present Writ Peon qua peoners No.2 to 4 with liberty to challenge the similar orders such as the present impugned order dated 19.2.2024, passed by the respondents in their cases, if any. Permi:ed to do so. Dismissed as withdrawn qua peoners No.2 to 4. 3. Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:– 20.06.2019: Haryana Sta= Selecon Commission (hereina>er referred to as ‘HSSC’) had issued an Advt. No.5/2019 dated 20.06.2019 for selecon and appointment of Clerks in di=erent Departments/Boards/ Corporaons in the State of Haryana. Peoner No.1/referred to hereina>er as ‘peoner’, had applied for the post of Clerk. 03.09.2020: Result was declared on 03.09.2020. In this Result, the peoner could not secure place in the list of selected candidates. 13.08.2021: Some candidates who were out of selecon zone, had .led CWP-15672-2021 on 30.08.2021 for revision of the Result. 25.04.2022: Vide order dated 25.04.2022 passed in CWP-15672-2021, this Court had quashed the Result dated 03.09.2020 and had further directed HSSC to redo the enre exercise. DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 3 of 9 23.06.2022: Consequenally, the Result was revised on 23.06.2022 and some new candidates were included in the zone of consideraon and some of the already selected candidates were ousted from the list of selected candidates. In this result, the peoner secured selecon on the basis of merit. Accordingly, name of the peoner was recommended for fresh appointment in the respondent-Department. Aggrieved of the ‘fresh’ appointment, peoner, alongwith other similarly situated Clerks .led CWP-22213-2023 tled as Kuldeep and others vs. State of Haryana and others praying therein for giving them retrospecve appointment from the date of original selecon and all applicable service bene.ts of increments, seniority, promoon, ACP et cetera from the date when their less meritorious counterparts of the same Adversement had been given appointment in the Welfare Board. 04.10.2023: The above said CWP-22213-2023 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) “with liberty to the pe oners to le appropriate claim before the authori es concerned at this stage.” 16.10.2023: Accordingly, peoner had submi:ed his representaon dated 16.10.2023 before the respondents; which the respondents had failed to decide within the spulated me of 8 weeks. 16.12.2023: In the meanme, another CWP-14591-2023 tled as Amit Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, .led on 11.07.2023 by similarly situated freshly selected Clerks for grant of retrospecve DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 4 of 9 appointment and applicable noonal service bene.ts towards increment, seniority, promoon, ACP et cetera was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the fact that respondents had failed to decide Representaon dated 16.10.2023, peoner alongwith other similarly situated Clerks had .led CWP-569-2024 tled as Kuldeep and others vs. State of Haryana and others praying for grant of retrospecve appointment and applicable service bene.ts et cetera as granted to similarly situated Clerks vide order dated 16.12.2023 passed in CWP- 14591-2023. 11.01.2024: Vide order dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure P-3), Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the above said CWP-569-2024 direcng the respondents to decide claim of the peoners within 8 weeks in same terms as CWP-14591-2023 (Annexure P-2). 19.02.2024: Vide impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.2 has refused to consider period of retrospecve appointment of the peoner towards promoon. 4. Hence, the present Writ Peon. 5. Learned counsel for the peoner submits that respondent No.2 while deciding claim of the peoner vide impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-4) has misinterpreted the above order dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), and has refused to consider period of retrospecve appointment of the peoner towards promoon despite the fact that in para 11 of the order dated 16.12.2023, it had been DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 5 of 9 clearly held that period of retrospecve appointment shall also be considered for giving noonal bene.ts of increment and seniority. 6. Learned counsel submits that while passing the impugned order, respondent No.2 has gravely erred in ignoring the above said direcons. It is argued that the respondent No.2 has failed to understand that once the Ld. Single bench has directed to consider the period of retrospecve appointment towards seniority, then it is automacally inherent in the direcons that it shall be counted towards giving promoon to the e=ected employee without which the relief of granng bene.t of seniority shall be of no praccal use. Therefore, the decision of respondent no. 2 for not considering the period of retrospecve appointment towards the promoon of the peoners is violave of Arcles 14 & 16 of the Constuon of India and deserve to be quashed, in the interest of jusce. The peoners and the other similarly situated clerks have been given retrospecve appointments from the date when less meritorious re-selected clerks have been given appointments. It is submi:ed that the impugned order is causing prejudice to the peoners and the peoners can not be made to su=er in respect of their entlement for promoon, for the mistake of HSSC. 7. It is further submi:ed that in case of the peoners and other freshly selected clerks they have already served, in their respecve departments on the feeder post of clerk for nearly 2 years and they are already having relevant and suKcient experience of working on the promoonal post of Assistant and the feeder post of the clerk. In many DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 6 of 9 promoon cases .nalized by various departments, the candidates have been given relaxaon of required experience of 3 years and have been promoted as Assistant a>er giving such relaxaon. Therefore, the reasoning given by the respondent no. 2 for denying the consideraon of period of retrospecve appointment towards promoonal right of the peoners is unjus.ed and also against the le:er and spirit of the relief granted by this Court in Amit Kumar (Supra) case. 8. It is accordingly prayed that impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 qua the peoner be set aside and present Writ Peon be allowed in terms of order dated 16.12.2023 passed in CWP-14591-2023. 9. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the peoner and argued that claim of peoners No.2 to 4 have been decided vide separate speaking orders in their individual cases upon submiLng separate representaons by them. It is pointed out that speaking orders passed in respect of peoners No.2 to 4 have not been challenged in the present case. It is further pointed out that peoner No.3 has never submi:ed any representaon ll date. 10. Learned State counsel has further submi:ed that the names of the peoners were not included in the list of selected candidates in the unrevised original Result but in the revised Result dated 23.06.2022, they secured selecon on the basis of their merit in the recruitment test. Consequent upon receipt of recommendaons from the HSSC for DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 7 of 9 appointment of the peoners, they have been given appointments vide separate appointment le:ers on the posts of Clerk and they joined as such in July 2022. It is contended that peoners are not entled to retrospecve appointment. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Peon. 11. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the pares. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case .le in detail. I .nd merit in the submissions of the peoner. 12. It is not disputed that peoner was not declared successful in the Result dated 03.09.2020 as there was a discrepancy in the Answer Key. Vide order dated 25.04.2022 passed by this Court in CWP-15672- 2021, it was directed that revised Result be published. Pursuant thereto, the revised Result came to be published on 23.06.2022 in which the peoner was declared successful. There is merit to the contenon on behalf of the peoner that peoner cannot be made to su=er for a mistake on the part of the respondents. As such, peoner is liable to be granted retrospecve appointment on noonal basis qua only the .nancial bene.ts. There is no reason made out as to why peoner should be made to su=er with respect to service bene.ts such as increments, seniority, promoon, ACP et cetera. 13. This is especially so as the enre issue already stands considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court and in case of persons similarly situated as the present peoner, retrospecve appointment has been granted. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the State that DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 8 of 9 Clerks who were similarly situated as the peoner had approached this Court by way of CWP-14591-2023; which came to be allowed by Coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) in the following terms: - “11. The present pe ons are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the pe oners the appointment from the date when the candidates lower in merit have been granted appointment. The pe oners will also be en tled for the increment as well as seniority from the date when the candidates lower in merit were granted the said benet, however, no nancial benet will be admissible to the pe oners on account of retrospec ve appointment as undertaken by the pe oner before this Court. The same will be granted no onally only. 12. Let the present order be complied with within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. 13. At this stage, learned counsel submits that the pe oners intend to approach the Civil Court to raise the claim for compensa on for their wrongful denial of appointment at the ini al stage. For this, no liberty is needed. In case the pe oners feel aggrieved against any ac on of the respondents they are within their rights to agitate their claim in case the same will be admissible to them under law.” 14. No cogent or viable reason has been given by the learned State Counsel as to why the same relief is not admissible to the present peoner. Accordingly, the present Writ Peon stands allowed qua peoner No.1 herein in the same terms as the order dated 16.12.2023 DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8632-2024 (O&M) 9 of 9 passed in CWP-14591-2023; whereas the present Writ Peon stands dismissed as withdrawn qua peoners No. 2 to 4 with liberty to the said peoners to challenge their respecve order(s) similar to the present impugned order dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondents in their cases, if any. 15. Pending applicaon(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 13.08.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.08.14 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document