IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243 CWP-15340-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 09.07 .2026 Ishwar Singh … PeƟƟoner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Gulab Singh Narwal, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J . Present Civil Writ PeƟƟon under ArƟcles 226/227 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India has been filed by the peƟƟoner for issuance of a Writ in the nature of cerƟorari to set aside the non-speaking impugned order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 and to issue an appropriate writ, order or direcƟon, parƟcularly in the nature of mandamus, direcƟng the respondents No.2 and 3 to revise the peƟƟoner’s pension and other reƟral benefits on the basis of the deemed promoƟon to the post of Joint Director, along with all consequenƟal benefits. 2. It is inter alia submiƩed by learned counsel for the peƟƟoner that, vide order dated 06.02.1990, the peƟƟoner had joined the respondent NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15340-2025 (O&M) - 2 - Department as Fisheries Officer. Vide order dated 15.06.2009, peƟƟoner had been promoted as District Fisheries Officer, DFO. ThereaŌer, vide order dated 17.02.2021, the peƟƟoner was promoted as Deputy Director. It is submiƩed that being the senior-most Deputy Director, the peƟƟoner was enƟtled to promoƟon as Joint Director. Accordingly, peƟƟoner had submiƩed a representaƟon dated 22.11.2024, (Annexure P-1) to respondent No.2 herein, poinƟng out that the peƟƟoner, being senior most Deputy Director, deserves to be promoted as Joint Director on a post which was lying vacant. However, respondent No.2 issued office order dated 30.11.2024 (Annexure P-2), reƟring the peƟƟoner on aƩaining the age of superannuaƟon of 58 years. PeƟƟoner had then filed an RTI applicaƟon dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), seeking file noƟng of respondent No.2 regarding acƟon taken on the promoƟon of the peƟƟoner before his reƟrement on 30.11.2024. Vide RTI informaƟon dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-4), peƟƟoner was informed that the file noƟng of respondent No.2 had received the approval of the Chief Minister, Haryana. Despite that, respondent No. 1 had passed non-speaking impugned order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P-5), declining the promoƟon of the peƟƟoner. Ld. counsel contends that the said acƟon of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violaƟve of ArƟcle 21 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India. It is submiƩed that even as per the seniority list dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-6), issued by respondent No.3, it was clear that peƟƟoner was placed at third place, viz, aŌer first place of Director (Head of the Department); and second place of Joint Director, of the respondent-department. Thus, peƟƟoner was fully eligible and enƟtled for promoƟon. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15340-2025 (O&M) - 3 - 3. It is further submiƩed that the relevant rules i.e. Haryana Fisheries Department State Service Group A (Amendment Rules) 2016 (Annexure P-7) published by respondent No.2, have been made by the respondent department in self-style and tailor-made to suit their own. It is accordingly prayed that a writ, order or direcƟon be issued especially in the nature of cerƟorari to set aside the non-speaking impugned order dated 24.02.2025 Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1; and issue an appropriate writ, order or direcƟon especially in the nature of mandamus direcƟng respondent No.2 to issue the deemed promoƟon orders as Joint Director of the peƟƟoner on dated 28.11.2024. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the submissions of the peƟƟoner by submiƫng that the peƟƟoner does not possess the requisite educaƟonal qualificaƟon for promoƟon to post of Joint Director, Fisheries. In this regard, ld. counsel refers to paras 3-6 of the short reply dated 21.08.2025, filed on behalf of respondent No.1, which read as follows:- “3. That it is respecƞully submiƩed that the Haryana Fisheries Department, State Service Group A Rules 1980 as amended by the Haryana Fisheries Department (Amendment) Rules, 2016, are applicable to Group-A posts of Fisheries Department, Haryana. The eligibility criteria for the post of Joint Director Fisheries is prescribed in appendix B read with rule 7 and the same is reproduced as under (copy of service rule is annexed as Annexure R-1-2):- Serial Number DesignaƟon of posts Academic qualificaƟon and experience, if any for direct recruitment Academic qualificaƟon and experience, if any for appointment other than by direct recruitment 1 2 3 4 2 Joint Director Fisheries ---------------- By promoƟon (i) M.Sc. in Fisheries/ M.Sc. Zoology with specializaƟon in Fish and Fisheries on regular basis from a recognized University; NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15340-2025 (O&M) - 4 - Or B.F.SC. From a recognized University with two years Diploma from Central InsƟtute of Fisheries EducaƟon, Mumbai; and (ii) Two experience years as Deputy Director Fisheries/ Deputy Director Fisheries (Hatchery)/ Deputy Director Fisheries(StaƟsƟc) Or Eight years experience as District Fisheries Officer/ Fisheries Farm Manager/Fisheries Research Officer, 4. That it is most respecƞully submiƩed that from the bare perusal of the rules it is evidently clear that for promoƟon to the post of Joint Director Fisheries, a candidate need to possess a degree in M.Sc. Fisheries or M.Sc. Zoology with specializaƟon in Fish and Fisheries on regular basis from a recognized University. The candidate possessing Bachelor of Fisheries Science degree will also be considered eligible, if the candidate possess two years diploma from Central InsƟtute of Fisheries EducaƟon, Mumbai. Apart from the ibid qualificaƟon, the rules also mandates holding of some minimum experience i.e candidate either should have two years experience on the post of Deputy Director Fisheries/ Deputy Director Fisheries (Hatchery)/ Deputy Director Fisheries (StaƟsƟc) or eight year experience on the post of District Fisheries Officer/ Fisheries Farm Manager/ Fisheries Research Officer. 5. That it is most respecƞully submiƩed that the peƟƟoner did not possess the requisite educaƟonal qualificaƟon as prescribed in the departmental service rules i.e. either M.Sc. in Fisheries or M.Sc. Zoology with specializaƟon in Fish and Fisheries on regular basis from a recognized University or B.F.Sc. from a recognized University with two years Diploma from Central InsƟtute of Fisheries EducaƟon, Mumbai. The educaƟon qualificaƟon which the peƟƟoner possessed was a B.Sc. degree from recognized University with Zoology as one of the subject. Further, it is respecƞully submiƩed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in several cases, has held that the relaxaƟon of basic essenƟal educaƟonal qualificaƟons is not permissible, as such qualificaƟons ensure the maintenance of standards in public service and cannot be diluted for key posiƟons. 6. That it is most respecƞully submiƩed that as per rule 18 of the Haryana Fisheries Department, State Service Group A Rules 1980, the Government of NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15340-2025 (O&M) - 5 - Haryana has power to relax any of the provisions of these rules where it is necessary and expedient to do so with respect to any class or category of persons. The said rules is illustrated below:- "Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in wriƟng relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to an class or category or persons." Upon a careful reading of the aforemenƟoned rule, it is evidently clear that while the Government have the power to relax any of the provisions of these rules, such relaxaƟon may only be granted when it is deemed necessary and expedient. Moreover, this power must be exercised in relaƟon to a class or category of persons and not for an individual candidate, such as the peƟƟoner. In other words, the relaxaƟon of the rules may be applied only to a group or class, not to a single person. It is further submiƩed that as per seƩled law a single person may create a class or category but the same has to be on the basis of reasonable classificaƟon and for that in view of this rule, Government has to make the opinion that it is necessary or expedient for doing the same and reason in wriƟng has to be recorded. However, in the case of the peƟƟoner, respondent no. 2 has sought clarificaƟon on whether the peƟƟoner qualifies for a relaxaƟon of the essenƟal qualificaƟons. Importantly, this request does not specify any wriƩen grounds or jusƟficaƟon as to why the peƟƟoner should be treated as a separate class or category for the purposes of Rule 18. This lack of wriƩen raƟonale undermines the legiƟmacy of the relaxaƟon request and fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the rule. It is well-established in law that while a single person may be considered as consƟtuƟng a class or category for the purpose of granƟng a relaxaƟon, this classificaƟon must be based on reasonable grounds. To jusƟfy such a relaxaƟon, the Government must form an opinion that it is both necessary and expedient, and this opinion must be documented in wriƟng.” It is submiƩed that, therefore, the impugned order suffers from no error; and the present peƟƟon deserves to be dismissed. 5. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parƟes. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15340-2025 (O&M) - 6 - 6. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the peƟƟoner. 7. The above stated posiƟon in the wriƩen statement is very clear. The peƟƟoner does not dispute that he does not possess the necessary educaƟonal qualificaƟon required for promoƟon to the post of Joint Director, Fisheries, as sƟpulated in the 2016 Rules. 8. A bare reading of the above extract of the wriƩen statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1 shows that for promoƟon to post of Joint Director, Fisheries, a candidate needs to possess degree in M.Sc. Fisheries or M.Sc. Zoology with specializaƟon in Fish and Fisheries, on regular basis from a recognized University. It is further sƟpulated that a candidate possessing Bachelor of Fisheries Science degree will be considered eligible if he/she possesses two years Diploma from Central InsƟtute of Fisheries EducaƟon, Mumbai, along with the sƟpulated minimum experience. The rules also mandate holding of some minimum experience. The candidate either should have two years experience on the post of Deputy Director Fisheries/ Deputy Director Fisheries (Hatchery)/Deputy Director Fisheries (StaƟsƟc) or eight-year experience on the post of District Fisheries Officer/ Fisheries Farm Manager/Fisheries Research Officer. As per the respondents, the peƟƟoner duly fulfilled the eligibility as far as two years’ experience on the post of Deputy Director Fisheries is required; but he did not possess the requisite educaƟonal qualificaƟon i.e. either M.Sc. in Fisheries or M.Sc. Zoology with specializaƟon in Fish and Fisheries on regular basis from a recognized University or B.F.Sc. from a recognized University with two years Diploma from Central InsƟtute of Fisheries NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-15340-2025 (O&M) - 7 - EducaƟon, Mumbai. The educaƟonal qualificaƟon of the peƟƟoner is a B.Sc. degree from recognized University with Zoology as one of the subjects. The respondents have further clarified that to fill the post of Joint Director Fisheries a proposal was sent by the Directorate of Fisheries to AdministraƟve Department on dated 12.10.2024 with the following names in the panel based on in order of seniority: - a. Sh. Ishwar Singh, Deputy Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Panchkula. b. Smt. Anita Dahiya, Assistant Professor, Principal ARTI Hisar. c. Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Deputy Director, JyoƟsar (Kurukshetra). Further, it was proposed that the peƟƟoner possessed more than 70% good/very good annual confidenƟal reports and also fulfills the minimum experience required for promoƟon on the post of Joint Director Fisheries. However, he could sƟll not be promoted to the said post on account of not having required educaƟonal qualificaƟon. 9. Keeping in view the undisputed factual posiƟon, it is clear that claim of the peƟƟoner for promoƟon to post of Joint Director, Fisheries is misconceived. ConsequenƟally, the present Civil Writ PeƟƟon stands dismissed. 10. Pending applicaƟon(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No NEELAM KUMARI 2026.07.10 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh