CWP-14629-1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CWP-14629-1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2025 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (P.U.D.A.) ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manpreet Singh Longia, Advocate for the respondent. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.1999 (Annexure P-7) vide which the claim of the petitioner for assigning him seniority w.e.f. 09.11.1982 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was promoted as Section Officer has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of Section Officer (Works) w.e.f. 09.11.1982 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was promoted as Section Officer and also to direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner arising therefrom. Further a writ of prohibition has been sought to restrain the respondents from making further MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 2 promotion on the basis of the impugned seniority. Lastly it is prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, operation of the impugned order dated 13.09.1999 (Annexure P-7) be stayed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was promoted on 09.11.1982, however, his promotion was subject to passing the departmental examination to be held by Punjab Housing Development Board (in short ‘the Board’). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Board has failed to conduct departmental examination. On 18.08.1987 (Annexure P-5), the Board has passed a Resolution to the effect that if any employee of the Board, who want to appear in S.A.S. examination, may be allowed to do so, however, the period spent by them in connection with the examination will not be treated as duty. Further no claim for promotion to the post of Senior Auditor/Section Officer (Works) in the Board on the basis of their having qualified the S.A.S. examination will be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the failure of the Board to hold the examination for promotion, the petitioner cannot be faulted on account of non-holding of the departmental promotional examination. The petitioner was ready and willing to appear in such examination. It is not a case that the petitioner has not cleared the examination as he successfully cleared the examination as and when the said examination was conducted by the Board. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the case of the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground that MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 3 identically circumstanced person namely K.K. Garg, has approached this Court by raising the similar argument, who was promoted along with the petitioner on the same date vide Annexure P-1 and his writ petition i.e. CWP No.6373 of 1989 was dismissed on 18.11.1998. The Board as per its Resolution dated 23.07.1984 decided to conduct the departmental test for promotion to the post of Senior Auditor, however, the State Government directed the Board not to hold such a test and it was informed that if any of its officials wanted to take the examination for being considered for promotion, he may be advised to appear in the State S.A.S. examination. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the order dated 18.08.1987 (Annexure R-1/1) i.e. the decision with regard to giving an opportunity to the employees of the Board for clearing S.A.S. examination in order to be considered for further promotion. He also relied upon the letter dated 04.05.1989 (Annexure R-1/2) wherein it was decided by the Board that Junior Accountants, who are employees of the Board, would be considered for promotion to the post of Section Officer only when they qualify the State S.A.S. examination regularly held by the State Finance Department. The petitioner remained evasive and did not come forward to appear in the S.A.S. examination. The circular dated 18.08.1987 (Annexure P-5), clearly puts a specific condition on the petitioner and other similarly circumstanced employees to clear the S.A.S. examination, however, the petitioner did not appear in the aforementioned examination for the MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 4 reasons best known to him and as and when he cleared the qualifying examination, he was promoted. 4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner held a B.Com degree prior to joining the respondent/Board and, therefore, was already better qualified. Consequently, clearing the departmental examination is not relevant in his case. Furthermore, the petitioner fulfills the essential purpose behind the S.A.S. examination for promotion, thereby justifying his claim towards seniority and promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Harnam Singh and others vs Haryan Urban Development Authority and another, (1996) 8 SLR 640 and submits that the syllabus of S.A.S. examination is not more advanced than the B.Com curriculum conducted by the University and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners, who have qualified the departmental examination are better qualified than the petitioner. In light of the Harnam Singh’s case (supra), the claim of the petitioner is liable to be accepted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpire that this Court in K.K. Garg’s case (supra), has already considered the controversy involved in the present case. The operative part of the said judgment, reads as follows 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. The petitioner was promoted with a specific condition that he will have to pass the departmental examination. As is clear from the reply filed by the Board this examination was being conducted MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 5 regularly by the Finance Department of the State Government and it was open to the employees of the Board to take the examination. The letters received from the State Government fixing the date and venue of the examination were circulated to the employees of the Board and some of them took the ear in the examination examination and were promoted. The petitioner did not choose to appear with the result that he has not cleared that examination so far. He cannot, therefore, be promoted as Section Officer (works). 6. Further in Ashok Kumar Gulati vs The Punjab Housing Development Board, 1998(3) SCT 98, similarly situated employees, who could not clear the S.A.S. examination in terms of the condition set out in their promotional order were reverted. The reversion order was challenged before this Court and this Court has held as under:- “Soon after the issuance of circular letter dated 12.3.1986, the Housing Commissioner of the Board issued order dated 30.4.1986 promoting Sh. Sohan Singh and Sh. Charanjit Singh as Senior Auditors. However, as neither of them had passed the departmental examination, their promotions were described as provisional and were made subject to the passing of departmental examination with a further rider that they will be reverted in case they fail to qualify the examination. After about 7 years of their promotion, Sh. Sohan Singh and Sh. Charanjit Singh filed C.W.P. No. 14431 of 1993 but failed to convince the Court that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to treat their promotion as regular. Some of the observations made in the order dated 5.8.1994 passed by a Division Bench while dismissing C.W.P. No. 14431 of 1993 are reproduced below: MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 6 "The petitioners were promoted as Senior Auditors vide order dated April 30, 1986 on provisional basis subject to qualifying the departmental examination of the prescribed standard. It is the case of the petitioners that till November 1993, no departmental examination was held by the respondent and, therefore, the question of petitioners appearing in any such examination did not arise. Now the point put forth is that since the petitioners have worked on the promotional posts almost for eight years and are still continuing on the posts, they should be deemed to have passed the examination or in other words, the condition of qualifying the departmental examination should be deemed to have been relaxed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner cited B.N. Saxena v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, 1990(2) RSJ 512 and Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development, 1990(1) RSJ 255 to contend that if a person when initially appointed lacked some qualifications and gains sufficient experience on the post, then his services cannot be terminated on the ground that he lacked some qualifications. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners were promoted provisionally specifically on the condition that they will have to qualify the departmental examination. We are told that according to the Board's Executive Order, three chances are given to clear the departmental examination. Petitioners did not appear in the departmental examination held in November, 1993. Petitioners cannot be treated to have been regularly promoted till they pass this departmental examination. The authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioners have no relevance to the point in issue. In those cases, there was no such condition imposed as in the present case when the petitioners in those cases were appointed. MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 7 Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed." 10. By an order dated 1.12.1988, some persons who had passed S.A.S. Examination conducted by the Finance Department but were junior to one or the other petitioners were promoted as Section Officers. That order has been challenged in C.W.P. Nos. 8639 of 1938 and 326 of 1989 which are said to be still pending. By another order dated 7.12.1992, five persons, two of whom had passed Intermediate examination conducted by I.C.W.A. and the remaining three had passed S.A.S examination conducted by the Finance Department, were promoted as Section Officers (Works). On 30.11.1993, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Bansal and Sh. Amit Garg, Senior Assistants (Accounts) who are junior to the petitioners in that cadre, were promoted as Section Officers (Works). 7. Moreover, the stand taken by the petitioner with regard to shifting the blame on the respondent/Board for not holding the requisite qualifying examination is required to be rejected on the ground that vide circular dated 18.08.1987 (Annexure P-5), opportunity was granted to the employees to clear the S.A.S. examination in order to avail benefit of provisional promotion granted to them and the provisional promotion was to be regularized only when such employee clears the departmental promotional exam. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, 2018 SCC Online SC 2680, wherein it has been observed as follows:- MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 8 22. ……. it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.” 8. Furthermore, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Bhatt vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 INSC 1140, wherein it has been held as follows:- 26. The spectrum of judicial opinions referred to aforesaid leaves us with little doubt that though equality is the very bulwark of the provisions 24 of the constitution, in service jurisprudence, classifications are a matter of necessity and judicial pronouncements have sought to balance the MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 9 equality principle with the principle of classification, dependant on the nexus for making the classification. Higher educational qualifications have been repeatedly emphasized as an aspect which can give exclusive promotion, earlier promotion or for that matter, as in this case, an accelerated promotion. A higher degree of qualification intrinsically would bring in certain skills, though undoubtedly, that should be useful and have a nexus with the job being performed. As to who should examine this nexus, that has been left to the wisdom of the administrative authorities, who are best equipped to do so” 9. It is undisputed that many similarly situated employees of the respondent/Board have participated in the S.A.S. examination in terms of the Resolution dated 18.08.1987 (Annexure P-5) and earned promotions. The petitioner cleared the departmental examination in the year 1998, however, the contention that the date of passing the examination should be given effect from the original promotion date of 19.11.1982 is untenable. This submission is also required to be rejected, as the petitioner consciously chose not to appear for the S.A.S. examination for a prolonged period of eleven years, despite the Resolution dated 23.07.1984 clearly mandating the requirement. 10. Considering the above facts and circumstances on record, the petitioner’s claim to count his seniority from 1982 cannot be accepted as he passed the exam only in the year 1998. The eleven years delay, on the part of the petitioner, in appearing for the S.A.S. MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-14629-1999 10 examination, despite clear instructions and opportunities from the respondent/Board, disqualifies him from backdated promotion. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as granting such relief would violate the principles of fairness and proper administration of justice. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 10.09.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.12 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh