IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 Poonam Kumari State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Jasbir Sngh Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. ***** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ especially in the nature of 12.8.2025, Annexure P representation dated 27.2.2025, fixation of seniority from the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the immediate junior i.e. the private respondent no. 5 promoted by ignoring the legitimate right of the peti Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21908 Date of Decision: Poonam Kumari Versus State of Haryana and others HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Jasbir Sngh Mor, Advocate or the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. ***** Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ especially in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure P-15, passed by the respondent no. 2, rejecting the representation dated 27.2.2025, Annexure P-12, fixation of seniority from the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the immediate junior i.e. the private respondent no. 5 promoted by ignoring the legitimate right of the peti Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 21908-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 03.09.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ , quashing the impugned order dated 15, passed by the respondent no. 2, rejecting the , for grant of the benefit of re- fixation of seniority from the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the immediate junior i.e. the private respondent no. 5 - Mohinder Kumar, was promoted by ignoring the legitimate right of the petitioner, being in violation of Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ , quashing the impugned order dated 15, passed by the respondent no. 2, rejecting the - fixation of seniority from the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the Mohinder Kumar, was tioner, being in violation of Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 Service Rules, 1988; and the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure P also contrary to the order dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P Meena Kumari, giving her the same benefit of promotion and seniority against the same private respondent no. 5 and thus the impugned order, Annexure P passed by the respondent no. 2 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law, as having been passed without application of judicious mind; and issue a writ the nature of Mandamus same equitable relief of deemed date of promotion from the date o of respondent no. 5/ above the private respondent no. 5/ Kumari vide orders dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P the judgment dated 19.2.2025, Annexure P CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and others; and further prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be also directed to release the arrears of pay with interest @12% p.a. from the due date till actual realization for which 2. It is inter alia basis of the recommendation dated 13.05.2012 (Annexure P Haryana Staff Selection Commission, petitioner was appointed as Steno vide letter dated 26.07.2013 (Annexure P vide letter dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P 2026 (O&M) - 2 - Service Rules, 1988; and the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure P also contrary to the order dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P Meena Kumari, giving her the same benefit of promotion and seniority against the same private respondent no. 5 and thus the impugned order, Annexure P passed by the respondent no. 2 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law, as assed without application of judicious mind; and issue a writ Mandamus, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 be directed to grant the same equitable relief of deemed date of promotion from the date o of respondent no. 5/Mohinder Kumar with re ve the private respondent no. 5/Mohinder Kumar as granted to Meena Kumari vide orders dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P the judgment dated 19.2.2025, Annexure P-13, passed by this Hon'ble co CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and others; and further prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be also directed to release the arrears of pay with interest @12% p.a. from the due date till actual realization for which the petitioner is legally entitled. inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that basis of the recommendation dated 13.05.2012 (Annexure P Haryana Staff Selection Commission, petitioner was appointed as Steno vide letter dated 26.07.2013 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner had joined as such vide letter dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure P-3). Service Rules, 1988; and the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure P-15, is also contrary to the order dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P-16, passed in the case of Meena Kumari, giving her the same benefit of promotion and seniority against the same private respondent no. 5 and thus the impugned order, Annexure P-15, passed by the respondent no. 2 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law, as assed without application of judicious mind; and issue a writ in , the respondent nos. 1 to 4 be directed to grant the same equitable relief of deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion with re-fixation of seniority over and Mohinder Kumar as granted to Meena Kumari vide orders dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P-16, passed in compliance with 13, passed by this Hon'ble court in CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and others; and further prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be also directed to release the arrears of pay with interest @12% p.a. from the due date till actual the petitioner is legally entitled. submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the recommendation dated 13.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) made by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, petitioner was appointed as Steno-Typist 2). The petitioner had joined as such is ase of Meena Kumari, giving her the same benefit of promotion and seniority against 15, passed by the respondent no. 2 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law, as in , the respondent nos. 1 to 4 be directed to grant the f promotion fixation of seniority over and Mohinder Kumar as granted to Meena 16, passed in compliance with urt in CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and others; and further prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be also directed to release the arrears of pay with interest @12% p.a. from the due date till actual on the 1) made by the ypist 2). The petitioner had joined as such NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 3. Ld. counsel submits that vide letter dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P 5), petitioner had submitted her written consent that sh promotion in the line of 4. Ld. counsel submits that thereafter, vide order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-4), without circulating the seniority list, private respondent No. 5 herein was promoted as Stenographer by ignoring the petitioner’s legitimate right. It is pointed out that seniority is to be maintained as per the merit ascertained by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Ld. counsel refers to the recommendation of the Commission list the petitioner private respondent No. 5, namely Mohinder Kumar s/o Goverdhan is shown at Sr. No. 3. It is contended that therefore, respondent No. 5 w promoted as Stenographer by ignoring the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, petitioner had submitted a representation dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure P been promoted as Senior Stenographer nor given b completion of 10 petitioner, Respondent No. 3 had written a letter dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure P-8) directing petitioner to resubmit her option for promotion. Petit replied vide letter dated Nil (Annexure P the post of Stenographer. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), petitioner was promoted as Assistant. 2026 (O&M) - 3 - Ld. counsel submits that vide letter dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P 5), petitioner had submitted her written consent that sh promotion in the line of Personal Assistant instead of Stenographer. Ld. counsel submits that thereafter, vide order dated 30.12.2020 4), without circulating the seniority list, private respondent No. 5 promoted as Stenographer by ignoring the petitioner’s legitimate right. It is pointed out that seniority is to be maintained as per the merit ascertained by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Ld. counsel refers to the recommendation of the Commission (Annexure P list the petitioner-Poonam Kumari d/o Raj Singh is shown at Sr. No. 2, whereas private respondent No. 5, namely Mohinder Kumar s/o Goverdhan is shown at Sr. No. 3. It is contended that therefore, respondent No. 5 w promoted as Stenographer by ignoring the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner had submitted a representation dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) aggrieved of the fact that neither had the petitioner been promoted as Senior Stenographer nor given b 10 years of satisfactory service. Upon the representation of the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 had written a letter dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure 8) directing petitioner to resubmit her option for promotion. Petit replied vide letter dated Nil (Annexure P-9) that she may kindly be promoted to the post of Stenographer. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 12.12.2024 7), petitioner was promoted as Assistant. Ld. counsel submits that vide letter dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P- 5), petitioner had submitted her written consent that she wants to opt for Assistant instead of Stenographer. Ld. counsel submits that thereafter, vide order dated 30.12.2020 4), without circulating the seniority list, private respondent No. 5 promoted as Stenographer by ignoring the petitioner’s legitimate right. It is pointed out that seniority is to be maintained as per the merit ascertained by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Ld. counsel refers to the (Annexure P-1) to submit that in the said Poonam Kumari d/o Raj Singh is shown at Sr. No. 2, whereas private respondent No. 5, namely Mohinder Kumar s/o Goverdhan is shown at Sr. No. 3. It is contended that therefore, respondent No. 5 was wrongly promoted as Stenographer by ignoring the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner had submitted a representation dated 6) aggrieved of the fact that neither had the petitioner been promoted as Senior Stenographer nor given benefit of first ACP even after . Upon the representation of the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 had written a letter dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure 8) directing petitioner to resubmit her option for promotion. Petitioner had 9) that she may kindly be promoted to the post of Stenographer. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 12.12.2024 7), petitioner was promoted as Assistant. - e wants to opt for Ld. counsel submits that thereafter, vide order dated 30.12.2020 4), without circulating the seniority list, private respondent No. 5 promoted as Stenographer by ignoring the petitioner’s legitimate right. It is pointed out that seniority is to be maintained as per the merit ascertained by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Ld. counsel refers to the 1) to submit that in the said Poonam Kumari d/o Raj Singh is shown at Sr. No. 2, whereas private respondent No. 5, namely Mohinder Kumar s/o Goverdhan is shown at as wrongly Thereafter, petitioner had submitted a representation dated 6) aggrieved of the fact that neither had the petitioner enefit of first ACP even after . Upon the representation of the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 had written a letter dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure ioner had 9) that she may kindly be promoted to the post of Stenographer. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 12.12.2024 NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 6. Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.0 respondent No. 2 had sought objections with regard to the tentative seniority list (Annexure P- respondent No. 5 was shown at Sr. No. 52. Vide letter dated 27.0 (Annexure P-12), petitioner had duly submitted her written objections. 7. However, as the respondent No. 2 failed to finalize the seniority list, petitioner had approached this Court by way titled as Poonam Kumari vs. State of Haryan of vide order dated No. 2 to decide the representation dated 27.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order there with law within a period of four months. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P 8. Ld. counsel submits that the impugned order is unsustainable as, as evident from Anne the impugned order is also violative of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Services Rules, 1988. Even further, in a similar case, one Meen No. 5 as per merit determined by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, had also been promoted. Thus, discrimination has been caused against the petitioner. 2026 (O&M) - 4 - Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.0 respondent No. 2 had sought objections with regard to the tentative seniority -11) wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 76 and the respondent No. 5 was shown at Sr. No. 52. Vide letter dated 27.0 12), petitioner had duly submitted her written objections. However, as the respondent No. 2 failed to finalize the seniority list, petitioner had approached this Court by way Poonam Kumari vs. State of Haryana and others of vide order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-14) with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 27.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order there with law within a period of four months. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-15), claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Ld. counsel submits that the impugned order is unsustainable as, as evident from Annexure P-1, petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5. Moreover, the impugned order is also violative of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Services Rules, 1988. Even further, in a similar case, one Meena Kumari, who is also senior to respondent No. 5 as per merit determined by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, had also been promoted. Thus, discrimination has been caused against the Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-10), the respondent No. 2 had sought objections with regard to the tentative seniority 11) wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 76 and the respondent No. 5 was shown at Sr. No. 52. Vide letter dated 27.02.2025 12), petitioner had duly submitted her written objections. However, as the respondent No. 2 failed to finalize the seniority list, petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 12370 of 2025 a and others; which was disposed 14) with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 27.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order thereupon in accordance with law within a period of four months. Subsequently, vide impugned order 15), claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Ld. counsel submits that the impugned order is unsustainable as, as 1, petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5. Moreover, the impugned order is also violative of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Services Rules, 1988. Even a Kumari, who is also senior to respondent No. 5 as per merit determined by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, had also been promoted. Thus, discrimination has been caused against the 10), the respondent No. 2 had sought objections with regard to the tentative seniority 11) wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 76 and the .2025 However, as the respondent No. 2 failed to finalize the seniority of CWP No. 12370 of 2025 ; which was disposed 14) with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 27.02.2025 submitted by the in accordance with law within a period of four months. Subsequently, vide impugned order Ld. counsel submits that the impugned order is unsustainable as, as 1, petitioner is senior to respondent No. 5. Moreover, the impugned order is also violative of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Haryana Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Services Rules, 1988. Even a Kumari, who is also senior to respondent No. 5 as per merit determined by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, had also been promoted. Thus, discrimination has been caused against the NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 9. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the order, A would show that while showing said Meena Kumari and the petitioner senior to the private respondent promotion to the post of Stenographer with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 30.12.2020 i.e. the date when the private respondent no. 5 was promoted as Stenographer and directions were also given to the respondent no. 4 to re with the judgment dated 19.2.2025, Annexure P 10. It is further contended that the respondent no. 2, passed two different orders i.e. order dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P Kumari giving the benefit; and the impugned order 12.8.2025, Annexure P rejecting the same benefits in case of the petitioner, without application of judicious mind in illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner. As such, no ground is made out to deprive the petitioner of the same benefit. 11. Ld. counsel for the pet writ petition be allowed and of Certiorari be issued quashing the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure P-15, passed by the respondent no. 2, rejecting the 27.2.2025, Annexure P the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the immediate junior i.e. the private respondent no. 5 legitimate right of the petitioner, being in violation of Rule 11 of the Haryana 2026 (O&M) - 5 - It is submitted that a bare perusal of the order, A would show that while showing said Meena Kumari and the petitioner senior to the private respondent No. 5/Mohinder Kumar, Meena Kumari was given the promotion to the post of Stenographer with all consequential benefits w.e.f. he date when the private respondent no. 5 was promoted as Stenographer and directions were also given to the respondent no. 4 to re-fix the seniority as well as pay, accordingly in compliance with the judgment dated 19.2.2025, Annexure P- It is further contended that the respondent no. 2, passed two different orders i.e. order dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P Kumari giving the benefit; and the impugned order 12.8.2025, Annexure P the same benefits in case of the petitioner, without application of judicious mind in illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner. As such, no ground is made out to deprive the petitioner of the same benefit. Ld. counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays that the present writ petition be allowed and “a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature be issued quashing the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure 15, passed by the respondent no. 2, rejecting the 27.2.2025, Annexure P-12, for grant of the benefit of re the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the immediate junior i.e. the private respondent no. 5/Mohinder Kumar, was promoted by ignoring the legitimate right of the petitioner, being in violation of Rule 11 of the Haryana It is submitted that a bare perusal of the order, Annexure P-16 would show that while showing said Meena Kumari and the petitioner senior to Mohinder Kumar, Meena Kumari was given the promotion to the post of Stenographer with all consequential benefits w.e.f. he date when the private respondent no. 5/Mohinder Kumar was promoted as Stenographer and directions were also given to the fix the seniority as well as pay, accordingly in compliance -13, passed by this Court. It is further contended that the respondent no. 2, passed two different orders i.e. order dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P-16 in the case of Meena Kumari giving the benefit; and the impugned order 12.8.2025, Annexure P-15, the same benefits in case of the petitioner, without application of judicious mind in illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner. As such, no ground is made out to deprive the petitioner of the same benefit. ccordingly prays that the present “a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature be issued quashing the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure 15, passed by the respondent no. 2, rejecting the representation dated for grant of the benefit of re-fixation of seniority from the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the immediate junior i.e. the Mohinder Kumar, was promoted by ignoring the legitimate right of the petitioner, being in violation of Rule 11 of the Haryana 16 would show that while showing said Meena Kumari and the petitioner senior to Mohinder Kumar, Meena Kumari was given the promotion to the post of Stenographer with all consequential benefits w.e.f. Mohinder Kumar was promoted as Stenographer and directions were also given to the fix the seniority as well as pay, accordingly in compliance It is further contended that the respondent no. 2, passed two 16 in the case of Meena 15, the same benefits in case of the petitioner, without application of judicious mind in illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner. ccordingly prays that the present “a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature be issued quashing the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure representation dated fixation of seniority from the date persons junior to the petitioner, including the immediate junior i.e. the Mohinder Kumar, was promoted by ignoring the legitimate right of the petitioner, being in violation of Rule 11 of the Haryana NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Service Rules, 1988 and the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure P dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P the same benefit of promotion and seniority against the same private respondent no. 5 and thus the impugned order, Annexure P respondent no. 2 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law in the nature of Mandamus same equitable relief of deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion of respondent no. 5 above the private respondent no. 5 Kumari vide orders dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P the judgment dated 19.2.2025, Annexure P CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and others”. 12. Per contra, submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the case of Meena Kumari is no never refused promotion, whereas petitioner had herself refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer. It is contended that therefore there is no merit in the present writ petition and the sa 2026 (O&M) - 6 - Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Service Rules, 1988 and the impugned order dated 12.8.2025, Annexure P-15 is als dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P-16, passed in the case of Meena Kumari, giving her the same benefit of promotion and seniority against the same private respondent no. 5 and thus the impugned order, Annexure P t no. 2 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law Mandamus, the respondent nos. 1 to 4 be directed to grant the same equitable relief of deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion of respondent no. 5/Mohinder Kumar with re- above the private respondent no. 5/Mohinder Kumar as granted to Meena Kumari vide orders dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P the judgment dated 19.2.2025, Annexure P-13, passed by this H CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and Per contra, ld. State counsel has vehemently objected to submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the case of Meena Kumari is not similar to that of the petitioner never refused promotion, whereas petitioner had herself refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer. It is contended that therefore there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Service Rules, 1988 and the 15 is also contrary to the order passed in the case of Meena Kumari, giving her the same benefit of promotion and seniority against the same private respondent no. 5 and thus the impugned order, Annexure P-15, passed by the t no. 2 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law, and issuing a writ , the respondent nos. 1 to 4 be directed to grant the same equitable relief of deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion -fixation of seniority over and Mohinder Kumar as granted to Meena Kumari vide orders dated 24.4.2025, Annexure P-16, passed in compliance with 13, passed by this Hon'ble court in CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and ld. State counsel has vehemently objected to submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the case t similar to that of the petitioner, as Meena Kumari had never refused promotion, whereas petitioner had herself refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer. It is contended that therefore there is me deserves to be dismissed. Revenue Department District Subordinate (Group C) Service Rules, 1988 and the o contrary to the order passed in the case of Meena Kumari, giving her the same benefit of promotion and seniority against the same private 15, passed by the and issuing a writ , the respondent nos. 1 to 4 be directed to grant the same equitable relief of deemed date of promotion from the date of promotion fixation of seniority over and Mohinder Kumar as granted to Meena 16, passed in compliance with on'ble court in CWP No 6723 of 2021 titled as Meena Kumari versus State of Haryana and ld. State counsel has vehemently objected to submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the case as Meena Kumari had never refused promotion, whereas petitioner had herself refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer. It is contended that therefore there is NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 13. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 14. It is undisputed fact on record that at the time of her posting as Steno-Typist, petitioner had been offered promotion to the post of Stenographer and she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer. Concededly, vide letter dated 18.06.2020 petitioner had submitted her written consent that she wants to opt for promotion in the line of has been admitted by the petitioner also in para 23 of the present writ petition, wherein petitioner has averred as follows: 15. As such, case of Meena Kumari and petitioner are admittedly, said Meena Kumari had never refused promotion. 2026 (O&M) - 7 - No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is undisputed fact on record that at the time of her posting as Typist, petitioner had been offered promotion to the post of Stenographer and she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer. Concededly, vide letter dated 18.06.2020 petitioner had submitted her written consent that she wants to opt for promotion in the line of Personal Assistant instead of Stenographer. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner also in para 23 of the present writ petition, petitioner has averred as follows:- “23. That the seniority amongst the Stenographers and Assistant is common and joint for further promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent Revenue (ASR) and though the petitioner refused promotion, but the rule of law nowhere deny fixation of seniority, strictly as per the merit determined by the selection panel and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were required to give the benefit of notional promotion to the petitioner as Stenographer from the date the private respondent No. 5/Mohinder Kumar was promoted as Stenographer and to re-determine and fix the seniority of the petitioner as Assistant over and above the private respondent no. 5/Mohinder Kumar.” As such, case of Meena Kumari and petitioner are admittedly, said Meena Kumari had never refused promotion. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is undisputed fact on record that at the time of her posting as Typist, petitioner had been offered promotion to the post of Stenographer and she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer. Concededly, vide letter dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-5), petitioner had submitted her written consent that she wants to opt for Assistant instead of Stenographer. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner also in para 23 of the present writ petition, “23. That the seniority amongst the Stenographers and Assistant is common and joint for further promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent Revenue (ASR) and though the petitioner refused promotion, but the rule of seniority and law nowhere deny fixation of seniority, strictly as per the merit determined by the selection panel and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were required to give the benefit of notional promotion to the petitioner as Stenographer from the date /Mohinder Kumar was promoted determine and fix the seniority of the petitioner as Assistant over and above the private Mohinder Kumar.” As such, case of Meena Kumari and petitioner are not similar as, admittedly, said Meena Kumari had never refused promotion. No other argument is made on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file and record in detail. I It is undisputed fact on record that at the time of her posting as Typist, petitioner had been offered promotion to the post of Stenographer and she had refused to take promotion to the post of 5), petitioner had submitted her written consent that she wants to opt for Assistant instead of Stenographer. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner also in para 23 of the present writ petition, “23. That the seniority amongst the Stenographers and Assistant is common and joint for further promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent Revenue (ASR) and though seniority and law nowhere deny fixation of seniority, strictly as per the merit determined by the selection panel and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were required to give the benefit of notional promotion to the petitioner as Stenographer from the date Mohinder Kumar was promoted determine and fix the seniority of the petitioner as Assistant over and above the private not similar as, NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 16. Further, as per the departmental rules, Steno promoted either to the post of Stenographer or to the post of Assistant. Both posts are of the same rank and pay s Stenographer can only be made from amongst Steno promotion to the post of Assistant can be made from amongst Clerks/Steno Typists and, as such, seniority of Clerks and Steno 17. It is admitted fact on record, not disputed by the petitioner, that though petitioner was senior to respondent No. 5, but on her turn for promotion as Stenographer, petitioner had given in writing vide her application dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P post of Stenographer and she is willing to be promoted as such, petitioner herself had refused promotion to post of Stenographer. Consequently, respondent No. 5 came to be promoted as Stenographer order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P 18. As such, claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority over and above respondent No. 5 with retrospective effect is misconceived. 19. Moreover, even as per Instructions dated 02.11.1992 (Annexure R 1) issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and as per proviso of Rule 14(2) of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, once a Government employee has forgone promotion, such forgoing shall remain in force for a minimum period of 1 year or 2026 (O&M) - 8 - Further, as per the departmental rules, Steno promoted either to the post of Stenographer or to the post of Assistant. Both posts are of the same rank and pay scale, but promotion to the post of Stenographer can only be made from amongst Steno promotion to the post of Assistant can be made from amongst Clerks/Steno Typists and, as such, seniority of Clerks and Steno s admitted fact on record, not disputed by the petitioner, that though petitioner was senior to respondent No. 5, but on her turn for promotion as Stenographer, petitioner had given in writing vide her application dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-5) that she is not willing to be promoted to the post of Stenographer and she is willing to be promoted as such, petitioner herself had refused promotion to post of Stenographer. Consequently, respondent No. 5 came to be promoted as Stenographer order dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-4). As such, claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority over and above respondent No. 5 with retrospective effect is misconceived. Moreover, even as per Instructions dated 02.11.1992 (Annexure R issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and as per proviso of Rule 14(2) of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, once a Government employee has forgone promotion, such forgoing shall remain in force for a minimum period of 1 year or up to the period he gives in writing to reconsider Further, as per the departmental rules, Steno-Typists can be promoted either to the post of Stenographer or to the post of Assistant. Both cale, but promotion to the post of Stenographer can only be made from amongst Steno-Typists; whereas promotion to the post of Assistant can be made from amongst Clerks/Steno- Typists and, as such, seniority of Clerks and Steno-Typists is combined. s admitted fact on record, not disputed by the petitioner, that though petitioner was senior to respondent No. 5, but on her turn for promotion as Stenographer, petitioner had given in writing vide her application s not willing to be promoted to the post of Stenographer and she is willing to be promoted as Personal Assistant. As such, petitioner herself had refused promotion to post of Stenographer. Consequently, respondent No. 5 came to be promoted as Stenographer vide As such, claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority over and above respondent No. 5 with retrospective effect is misconceived. Moreover, even as per Instructions dated 02.11.1992 (Annexure R- issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and as per proviso of Rule 14(2) of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, once a Government employee has forgone promotion, such forgoing shall remain in force for a up to the period he gives in writing to reconsider Typists can be promoted either to the post of Stenographer or to the post of Assistant. Both cale, but promotion to the post of Typists; whereas - s admitted fact on record, not disputed by the petitioner, that though petitioner was senior to respondent No. 5, but on her turn for promotion as Stenographer, petitioner had given in writing vide her application s not willing to be promoted to the Assistant. As such, petitioner herself had refused promotion to post of Stenographer. vide As such, claim of the petitioner for grant of seniority over and - issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and as per proviso of Rule 14(2) of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, once a Government employee has forgone promotion, such forgoing shall remain in force for a up to the period he gives in writing to reconsider NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 his name for promotion, whichever is later, and the person promoted during this period will rank senior to him. 20. As such, once the petitioner herself had refused promotion as Stenographer and had give Stenographer only after a gap of about four years, the same could not be considered at that time as no post of Stenographer was vacant. However, when her turn came for promotion to the post of Assistant, she vide order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P Stenographer had fallen vacant. Petitioner was also given an opportunity of personal hearing on 06.08.2025 before passing of the impugned order. 21. Relevant (Annexure P-15) reads as follows: 2026 (O&M) - 9 - his name for promotion, whichever is later, and the person promoted during this period will rank senior to him. As such, once the petitioner herself had refused promotion as Stenographer and had given her name for reconsideration for promotion as Stenographer only after a gap of about four years, the same could not be considered at that time as no post of Stenographer was vacant. However, when her turn came for promotion to the post of Assistant, she vide order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), as even by that time no post of Stenographer had fallen vacant. Petitioner was also given an opportunity of personal hearing on 06.08.2025 before passing of the impugned order. Relevant extract of the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 15) reads as follows: “The Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani vide his letter No. 1184/EB dated 14.07.2020 also sent an application of the present petitioner Smt. Poonam Kamari dated 18.06.2020 whereby Smt. Poonam Kumari had requested that she is not willing to take promotion to the post of Stenographer and she is willing to take promotion to the post of Assistant. As per Instructions issued by the Chief Secretary to G Haryana vide U.O. No. 2/21/92 as per the provisions of Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, once a Government employee has foregone his/her promotion, such foregoing shall remain in force for a minimum period of one year or upto the period he/she gives in writing to re his name for promotion, whichever is later, and the person promoted during As such, once the petitioner herself had refused promotion as n her name for reconsideration for promotion as Stenographer only after a gap of about four years, the same could not be considered at that time as no post of Stenographer was vacant. However, when her turn came for promotion to the post of Assistant, she was promoted as such 7), as even by that time no post of Stenographer had fallen vacant. Petitioner was also given an opportunity of personal hearing on 06.08.2025 before passing of the impugned order. extract of the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani vide his letter No. 1184/EB dated 14.07.2020 also sent an application of the present petitioner Smt. Poonam Kamari dated 18.06.2020 mt. Poonam Kumari had requested that she is not willing to take promotion to the post of Stenographer and she is willing to take promotion to the post of Assistant. As per Instructions issued by the Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana vide U.O. No. 2/21/92-2 GS1 dated 02.11.1992 and as per the provisions of Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, once a Government employee has foregone his/her promotion, such foregoing shall remain in force for a minimum period of one year or upto the period e/she gives in writing to re-consider his/her name for his name for promotion, whichever is later, and the person promoted during As such, once the petitioner herself had refused promotion as n her name for reconsideration for promotion as Stenographer only after a gap of about four years, the same could not be considered at that time as no post of Stenographer was vacant. However, when was promoted as such 7), as even by that time no post of Stenographer had fallen vacant. Petitioner was also given an opportunity of extract of the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani vide his letter No. 1184/EB dated 14.07.2020 also sent an application of the present petitioner Smt. Poonam Kamari dated 18.06.2020 mt. Poonam Kumari had requested that she is not willing to take promotion to the post of Stenographer and she is willing to take promotion to the post of Assistant. As vt. GS1 dated 02.11.1992 and as per the provisions of Rule 14 of the Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2016, once a Government employee has foregone his/her promotion, such foregoing shall remain in force for a minimum period of one year or upto the period consider his/her name for NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 2026 (O&M) - 10 - promotion, whichever is later and the person promoted during this period will rank senior to him/her. Though as per the above-mentioned merit/seniority. Smt. Poonam was senior to Shri Mohinder Kumar an Steno-Typist but since she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer on her turn, therefore. Shri Mohinder Kumar, Steno-typist was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide this office order dated 30.12.2020 and thereafter, Smt. Meena Kumari, Steno Commissioner, Charkhi Dadri was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide order dated 27.04.2023 because till then, Smt. Poonam Kumari did not give in writing to reconsider her name for promotion to the pos after a gap of four years of her refusal for promotion to the post of Stenographer, she gave an application on 01.03.2024 for promotion but since all the posts of Stenographer were already filled-up, therefore, she was given pro turn to the post of Assistant on 19.12.2024 as per her willing given on 18.06.2020 and she accepted the same and she is still posted as Assistant. The posts of Stenographer and Assistant are of the same rank. Therefore, as per the above mentioned government Instructions/rules, now she cannot claim seniority and promotion over Shri Mohinder Kumar and Smt. Meena Kumari on the post of Stenographer because she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer on her turn. As far as the case of Smt. Meena Kumari is concerned, she had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 6723 of 2021 before Hon'ble High Court claiming to be senior to Shri Mohinder Kumar, Steno-typist, on the basis of the merit list promotion, whichever is later and the person promoted during this period will rank senior to him/her. Though as per mentioned merit/seniority. Smt. Poonam was senior to Shri Mohinder Kumar and Smt. Meena Kumari as Typist but since she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer on her turn, therefore. Shri typist was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide this office order dated 30.12.2020 and after, Smt. Meena Kumari, Steno-Typist o/o Deputy Commissioner, Charkhi Dadri was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide order dated 27.04.2023 because till then, Smt. Poonam Kumari did not give in writing to reconsider her name for promotion to the post of Stenographer. However, after a gap of four years of her refusal for promotion to the post of Stenographer, she gave an application on 01.03.2024 for promotion but since all the posts of Stenographer were up, therefore, she was given promotion on her turn to the post of Assistant on 19.12.2024 as per her willing given on 18.06.2020 and she accepted the same and she is still posted as Assistant. The posts of Stenographer and Assistant are of the same rank. Therefore, as per the above- oned government Instructions/rules, now she cannot claim seniority and promotion over Shri Mohinder Kumar and Smt. Meena Kumari on the post of Stenographer because she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer e of Smt. Meena Kumari is concerned, she had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 6723 of 2021 before Hon'ble High Court claiming to be senior to Shri Mohinder , on the basis of the merit list promotion, whichever is later and the person promoted during this period will rank senior to him/her. Though as per mentioned merit/seniority. Smt. Poonam was d Smt. Meena Kumari as Typist but since she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer on her turn, therefore. Shri typist was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide this office order dated 30.12.2020 and Typist o/o Deputy Commissioner, Charkhi Dadri was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide order dated 27.04.2023 because till then, Smt. Poonam Kumari did not give in writing to reconsider her t of Stenographer. However, after a gap of four years of her refusal for promotion to the post of Stenographer, she gave an application on 01.03.2024 for promotion but since all the posts of Stenographer were motion on her turn to the post of Assistant on 19.12.2024 as per her willing given on 18.06.2020 and she accepted the same and she is still posted as Assistant. The posts of Stenographer and - oned government Instructions/rules, now she cannot claim seniority and promotion over Shri Mohinder Kumar and Smt. Meena Kumari on the post of Stenographer because she had refused to take promotion to the post of Stenographer e of Smt. Meena Kumari is concerned, she had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 6723 of 2021 before Hon'ble High Court claiming to be senior to Shri Mohinder , on the basis of the merit list NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21908-2026 22. In view of the facts noted interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 23. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 03.09.2026 Neelam Whether speaking /reasoned Whether Reportable 2026 (O&M) - 11 - recommended by Haryana Staff Selection Commission the said CWP was allowed by Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 19.02.2025 and she has been given seniority over Shri Mohinder Kumar accordingly but the case of petitioner Smt. Poonam Kumari is not similar to Smt. Meena Kumari because Smt. Meen refuse/forego/ignore the promotion on her turn to the post of Stenographer whereas Smt. Poonam Kumari had refused/forgone the promotion on her turn to the post of Stenographer. In view of the above facts and circumstances, Smt. Poonam Kumari cannot be given any benefit of the above said judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 19.02.2025. Accordingly, the representation dated 27.02.2025 filed by Smt. Poonam Kumari is hereby rejected being without any merit”. In view of the facts noted above, I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No recommended by Haryana Staff Selection Commission and the said CWP was allowed by Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 19.02.2025 and she has been given seniority over Shri Mohinder Kumar accordingly but the case of petitioner Smt. Poonam Kumari is not similar to Smt. Meena Kumari because Smt. Meena Kumari did not refuse/forego/ignore the promotion on her turn to the post of Stenographer whereas Smt. Poonam Kumari had refused/forgone the promotion on her turn to the post of In view of the above facts and circumstances, Smt. ri cannot be given any benefit of the above of Hon'ble High Court dated 19.02.2025. Accordingly, the representation dated 27.02.2025 filed by Smt. Poonam Kumari is hereby rejected being without any I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No and the said CWP was allowed by Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 19.02.2025 and she has been given seniority over Shri Mohinder Kumar accordingly but the case of petitioner Smt. Poonam Kumari is not similar to Smt. Meena a Kumari did not refuse/forego/ignore the promotion on her turn to the post of Stenographer whereas Smt. Poonam Kumari had refused/forgone the promotion on her turn to the post of In view of the above facts and circumstances, Smt. ri cannot be given any benefit of the above of Hon'ble High Court dated 19.02.2025. Accordingly, the representation dated 27.02.2025 filed by Smt. Poonam Kumari is hereby rejected being without any I find no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands NEELAM KUMARI 2026.09.08 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document