106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT BHARTI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate and Dr. Purushotam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The petitioners before us assail the intro Appendix-B to Service Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules of 2019”) whereby post of the Vice Principal introduced to be filled by promotion experience as 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the post of Heads cadre of that particular faculty. H the post of Vice Principal all the cadres Rule 11 of the Rules of 2019 members of the service shall be determined by the length of continuous IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: BHARTI AND OTHERS V STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate and Dr. Purushotam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The petitioners before us assail the intro to the Haryana Technical Education Department (Group Service Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules of 2019”) whereby post of the Vice Principal-cum-Training and Placement Officer has been introduced to be filled by promotion from those experience as the Heads of Department of the Government Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the s of Department is concerned, the same cadre of that particular faculty. However, for the purpose of promotion the post of Vice Principal-cum-Training and Placement Officer s would merge which would go Rule 11 of the Rules of 2019, which provides that the seniority members of the service shall be determined by the length of continuous IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18230-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17th of March, 2025 ..…...Petitioner(s) V/s. .......Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate and Dr. Purushotam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana. The petitioners before us assail the introduction of Clause 4 of the Haryana Technical Education Department (Group-A) Service Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules of 2019”) whereby Training and Placement Officer has been from those who possess one year Department of the Government Polytechnics. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the of Department is concerned, the same is to be filled from the owever, for the purpose of promotion to Training and Placement Officer, seniority of go contrary to the provisions of which provides that the seniority inter se of members of the service shall be determined by the length of continuous Suresh Kumar 2025.03.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18230-2024 service on any post in the service provided in the services, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre. 3. Learned counsel s Department are the purpose of Training and Placement Officer. of the Vice Principal and providing promotion of are more than one Head of employees would suffer while officers working in other faculties where there is only one promotion. The affect the Lecturers a particular department, like the petitioners Computer Department 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are still working as Lecturers and their chances of promotion would be reduced as seniority would be prepared and the Heads of Computer Department promoted resul reduced in the 2024 (O&M) p. 2 service on any post in the service provided, where there are different cadres in the services, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre. Learned counsel submits that since the Head Department are from separate cadres, they cannot be merged together for the purpose of preparing seniority list for the post of Vice Principal Training and Placement Officer. It is submitted that by introducing the of the Vice Principal-cum-Training and Placement Officer in Appendix B d providing channel of appointment by way of all the employees working in a are more than one Head of the Department, would employees would suffer while officers working in other faculties where there is only one Head of the Department would get better chance . The inter se seniority list, which Lecturers’ and Senior Lecturers’ chances of promotion a particular department, like the petitioners Computer Department where there are 16 posts of HOD. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are still working cturers and their chances of promotion would be reduced as seniority would be prepared and the Heads of Department, which are 16 in numbers promoted resulting in the entire channel for prom reduced in the Computer Department. where there are different cadres in the services, the seniority shall be determined separately for each cadre. ubmits that since the Heads of the separate cadres, they cannot be merged together for seniority list for the post of Vice Principal-cum- It is submitted that by introducing the post Training and Placement Officer in Appendix B by way of promotion, the chances for employees working in a particular faculty, where there partment, would be jeopardized and employees would suffer while officers working in other faculties where Department would get better chance of ist, which would be prepared, would ’ chances of promotion working in a particular department, like the petitioners, who are working in the where there are 16 posts of HOD. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are still working cturers and their chances of promotion would be reduced as inter se seniority would be prepared and the Heads of the Departments working in which are 16 in numbers, would not be further in the entire channel for promotion of all the employees Suresh Kumar 2025.03.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18230-2024 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the provisions of the Rules. 6. We find that the provisions of introduced in the State of Haryana vide provides avenue of the Vice Principal introduced, which promotion has, thus, been 7. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner examination, the Department alone, however, so far as the post of Vice Principal Placement Officer Head of Department in various fac their inter se seniority say, in the Computer Faculty Department say considered in as Head of the where more than one Head may find themselves placed over and above Departments of another department. However, these are circumstances 2024 (O&M) p. 3 We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the provisions of the We find that the provisions of in the State of Haryana vide notification dated 12.11.2019, avenues of promotion on each stage Vice Principal-cum-Training and Placement Officer has been which did not exist in the earlier Rules of 1986. has, thus, been increased in the new The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner examination, are found to be misconceived. So Department is concerned, the same has to be filled from that cadre owever, so far as the post of Vice Principal Placement Officer is concerned, all the eligible officers Head of Department in various faculties, would be considered by preparing seniority. Thus, a person appointed as Head of in the Computer Faculty and a person, who is appointed as Head of Department say, in the Agricultural Engineering ered in a seniority list based on the date on which the Department in her particular facult where more than one Heads of the Departments of a particular themselves placed over and above the Departments of another department. However, these are circumstances of service which go beyond the control of any person and are We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the provisions of the relevant We find that the provisions of the Rules which have been notification dated 12.11.2019, each stage. As per Appendix B, one post Training and Placement Officer has been in the earlier Rules of 1986. The channel of new Rules of 2019. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on misconceived. So far as the post of Head of , the same has to be filled from that cadre owever, so far as the post of Vice Principal-cum-Training and eligible officers, who are working as would be considered by preparing appointed as Head of the Department a person, who is appointed as Head of in the Agricultural Engineering Department, would be seniority list based on the date on which she was promoted particular faculty. There may be cases Departments of a particular department the entire lot of the Head of the Departments of another department. However, these are the fortuitous which go beyond the control of any person and are Suresh Kumar 2025.03.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18230-2024 based on the availability of the post of the firm view that in a particular department have different requirements and conditions of services 8. We further find that the introduction avenue of the promotion Department. None of the of the Department has come before us seeking any grievance. 9. The powers to introduce a new post in the the exclusive domain of the State Government and amendment in the Rules or framing of new Rules Article 309 or given to them under any Act passed by the Legislature not ordinarily be of any principles of beyond the purview Liquidator vs observed as under structuring/ restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Al abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and lay down the qualification etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect i 2024 (O&M) p. 4 based on the availability of the posts in each department the firm view that they do not create any anomaly in a particular department have different requirements and conditions of We further find that the introduction avenue of the promotion to the persons holding the . None of the petitioners is HOD and no officer holding post of of the Department has come before us seeking any grievance. The powers to introduce a new post in the the exclusive domain of the State Government and amendment in the Rules or framing of new Rules is an exercise done by the Government in terms of or provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India to them under any Act passed by the Legislature be interfered by this Court unless they are shown to be in violation of any principles of the Constitution. Creation or abolition of beyond the purview of judicial review as held by the apex Court in vs Dayananad & Ors ; 2008 (10) SCC 1, observed as under:- “41. The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/ restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and lay down the qualification etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of in each department. However, we are they do not create any anomaly as the officers working in a particular department have different requirements and conditions of We further find that the introduction of the post creates one further persons holding the post of Head of the petitioners is HOD and no officer holding post of Head of the Department has come before us seeking any grievance. The powers to introduce a new post in the Service Rules is within the exclusive domain of the State Government and amendment in the Rules or by the Government in terms of the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India or the powers to them under any Act passed by the Legislature. Such Rules framed would interfered by this Court unless they are shown to be in violation Constitution. Creation or abolition of a post, thus, is of judicial review as held by the apex Court in Official 2008 (10) SCC 1, wherein it has been The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/ restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the though the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and lay down the qualification etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely n tinkering with the exercise of Suresh Kumar 2025.03.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18230-2024 discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judici such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by malafides.” 10. We also find that all promotions Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 2019 shall be made on seniority confer any right to such promotions Principal-cum examining the overall merit of the candidate keeping in mid his seniority. Therefore, a person may be from a particular department the seniority list record. 11. The Supreme Court has examined seniority-cum Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others 12. In view of the above, we have no contentions raised by the petitioners are without any basis and we also find that the introduction of the concerned provision in Appendix new post, has a reasonable nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved introduction of the new Rules of 2019 providing further avenues of promotion. In view thereto also, no case for interference is made out. 13. The Writ Petition is 2024 (O&M) p. 5 discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by malafides.” We also find that all promotions Rule 9 (2) of the Rules of 2019 which provides “ shall be made on seniority-cum-merit basis and seniority alone shall not confer any right to such promotions.” Thus, cum-Training and Placement Officer has to be filled by the overall merit of the candidate keeping in mid his seniority. person may be from a particular department the seniority list, may not be considered for promotion base The Supreme Court has examined cum-merit and merit in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others; 1995 In view of the above, we have no contentions raised by the petitioners are without any basis and we also find that the introduction of the concerned provision in Appendix has a reasonable nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved uction of the new Rules of 2019 providing further avenues of promotion. In view thereto also, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of al review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by malafides.” We also find that all promotions have been made as per provides “unless otherwise provided, merit basis and seniority alone shall not Thus, we find the post of Vice ning and Placement Officer has to be filled by the overall merit of the candidate keeping in mid his seniority. person may be from a particular department, though senior in may not be considered for promotion based on his service The Supreme Court has examined in detail, the law relating to merit and merit in the case of Shambhu Singh Meena and 1995 SCC (L&S) 874. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding the contentions raised by the petitioners are without any basis and we also find that the introduction of the concerned provision in Appendix, by adding a has a reasonable nexus to the purpose sought to be achieved by uction of the new Rules of 2019 providing further avenues of promotion. In view thereto also, no case for interference is made out. accordingly. Suresh Kumar 2025.03.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18230-2024 14. Al accordingly. March 17, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2024 (O&M) p. 6 All pending applications in this [SANJEEV [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.03.21 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document