CWP-20822-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 113 AYYUB KHAN STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed, mandamus directing the respondent petitioner from the post of Clerk to Assistant, Superintendent with Disabilities 2. Learned State counsel has referred to the affidavit of the respondents to contend that Department on considered as Person with Disabilities from service 30.06.2017. Subsequently, in terms of the Government notifi aforementioned, he was given notional promotion as Assistant with effect from 31.12.2001 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: AYYUB KHAN Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter directing the respondents to grant notional promotion to the from the post of Clerk to Assistant, Superintendent in accordance with the Govern ies dated 18.11.1996 and 11.07.2023 Learned State counsel has referred to the affidavit of the respondents to contend that the petitioner was appointed on 07.02.1980, and on submission of his Disability certificate as Person with Disabilities with effect from 07.02.1985 from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from . Subsequently, in terms of the Government notifi aforementioned, he was given notional promotion as Assistant with effect 31.12.2001, vide office order dated 18.04.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20822-2025 Decided On: 28.08.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, inter alia, seeking a writ of s to grant notional promotion to the from the post of Clerk to Assistant, Deputy Superintendent and rdance with the Government notifications for Persons and 11.07.2023. Learned State counsel has referred to the affidavit filed on behalf the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the n of his Disability certificate was with effect from 07.02.1985. He retired aining the age of superannuation with effect from . Subsequently, in terms of the Government notifications aforementioned, he was given notional promotion as Assistant with effect 18.04.2025. However, he could not Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, , seeking a writ of s to grant notional promotion to the and for Persons on behalf as Clerk in the was e retired aining the age of superannuation with effect from cations aforementioned, he was given notional promotion as Assistant with effect e could not Aman Dua 2025.09.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-20822-2025 be considered for promotion category became available from service. Besides, she the category, who account of non consideration for promotion. 3. The facts aforementioned could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner to promotion by considering appointment/regularisation, i.e., 4. The since the petitioner has already accepted his promotion vide office order dated promotions as Deputy Superintendent basis of his promotion as Assistant which could not have been in the absence of any post. 5. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present petition and it stands dismissed. 28.08.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 2025 -2- be considered for promotion as Deputy Superintendent category became available in 2019, and by that time Besides, she referred to the details of Assistants senior to the category, who could also not be promoted as Deputy Superintendent on account of non-availability of posts. Accordingly, the petitioner has no right to consideration for promotion. The facts aforementioned could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, he, however, contends that to promotion by considering him disabled right from the date of his appointment/regularisation, i.e., 07.02.1980 instead of 07.02.1985 The argument is without substance and since the petitioner has already accepted his promotion ffice order dated 18.04.2025, which is not under challenge. His promotions as Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent basis of his promotion as Assistant which could not have been in the absence In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present petition and it stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? as Deputy Superintendent as the post under the that time he had already retired to the details of Assistants senior to him in promoted as Deputy Superintendent on Accordingly, the petitioner has no right to The facts aforementioned could not be disputed by learned e, however, contends that the petitioner is entitled isabled right from the date of his instead of 07.02.1985. is without substance and cannot be entertained since the petitioner has already accepted his promotion to the post of Assistant which is not under challenge. His further and Superintendent can only be on the basis of his promotion as Assistant which could not have been in the absence In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No as the post under the had already retired in promoted as Deputy Superintendent on Accordingly, the petitioner has no right to The facts aforementioned could not be disputed by learned the petitioner is entitled isabled right from the date of his cannot be entertained the post of Assistant further only be on the basis of his promotion as Assistant which could not have been in the absence In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present Aman Dua 2025.09.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document