IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 113 Civil Writ Petition No. 9084 of 2026 Date of Decision: July 08 , 2026. Dharam Pal ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENT(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Parth Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.(Oral) 1. Prayer in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 07.07.2025/10.07.2025 (Annexure P-9), whereby the promotion of the petitioner to the post of PGT (History) has been withdrawn. Further, a prayer is made seeking issuances of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of PGT (History) with effect from 13.06.2025, i.e. the date on which his juniors were promoted, together with all consequential service benefits. CONTENTIONS 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) on regular basis on 03.11.1997. Keeping in view his satisfactory service record, as reflected from Annexure P-1, he was promoted to the post of Head Teacher on 21.03.2007; thereafter, to the post of Social Studies Master on 15.10.2010 and, ultimately, to OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [2] the post of Elementary School Headmaster (ESHM) on 23.11.2020. The petitioner possesses the educational qualifications of B.A., B.Ed. and M.A. (History). It is further submitted that although the petitioner was serving on the promotional post of ESHM, he was posted as Social Studies Master at Government Senior Secondary School, Dhollu, District Fatehabad, vide order dated 28.08.2022. 3. Subsequently, the respondent-Department initiated the process for promotion to the post of Lecturer/PGT in various subjects, including History, from amongst eligible Social Studies Masters/TGTs. The petitioner's case was duly recommended to the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana (Annexure P- 6), and he was promoted as PGT (History) with effect from 13.06.2025 vide Annexure P-7. However, while his juniors were allotted their respective stations vide order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner's promotion was withdrawn by the impugned order dated 07.07.2025/10.07.2025 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that there is no provision under the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘2012 Rules’) permitting promotion from the post of ESHM to the post of PGT. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner fulfills all the prescribed eligibility conditions under the 2012 Rules, as he possesses a Master’s Degree in History with more than 50% marks, a B.Ed. qualification and more than two years’ experience as Social Studies Master. It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 29.07.2025 has not been decided till date. 4. Learned counsel has also produced orders dated 19.03.2026 and 10.12.2025 before this Court today to submit that similarly situated ESHMs namely- Satbir Singh and Satya Narain, respectively, have been promoted as PGTs. The said orders are taken on record and marked as Mark 'X' and Mark OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [3] 'Y', respectively. The Registry shall tag the same at the appropriate place. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel, on the basis of written instructions (Annexure A), which were taken on record vide order dated 12.05.2026, submits that under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules read with the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2012, the post of TGT alone constitutes the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of PGT. It is argued that the statutory Rules prescribe a definite channel of promotion and in terms thereof, an employee must be borne on the cadre of TGT in order to be eligible for consideration for promotion as PGT. There is no provision under the applicable Rules permitting direct promotion from the post of ESHM to the post of PGT. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the cases of Satbir Singh and Satya Narain is misconceived, as their respective promotions as PGTS were preceded by reversion to the post of TGT, which remains the feeder cadre as per Rules. OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that it is the case of the respondent-Department that the applicable statutory Rules solely recognize the post of TGT as the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of PGT. It has further claimed that promotions must strictly conform to the statutory Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Consequently, any promotion granted dehors the Rules is void ab initio; in other words, for an employee to claim promotion under the statutory scheme, he must belong to the prescribed feeder cadre for the said promotional post. 7. However, a perusal of Mark ‘X’ and Mark ‘Y’ indicates that similarly situated ESHMs as the petitioner, namely- Satbir Singh and Satya OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [4] Narain, were promoted to the post of PGT w.e.f. the date when their juniors were promoted to the said post i.e. 13.06.2025, notionally. Prima facie, in order to make them eligible for promotion to the post of PGT, the respondent-Department created a legal fiction of their reversion from the post of ESHM to TGT. The relevant parts of Mark ‘X’ and Mark ‘Y’ are reproduced below: Order dated 19.03.2026 (Mark ‘X’) “In compliance of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 21.01.2026 in CWP No. 38697 of 2025, Sh. Satbir Singh [088632], Head Master Elementary School, Government Senior Secondary School Baghola (1124), Palwal is hereby promoted to the post of PGT Sociology w.e.f. 13.06.2025 (Notionally) i.e. the date when his/her juniors have been promoted to the post of PGT Sociology in the Scheduled-I of Revised Pay Matrix of functional Pay Level 8 i.e. 47,600-1,51,100/- plus usual allowances as admissible from time to time with the condition that he firstly will be reverted from the post of Head Master Elementary School to the post of TGT Social Studies and posted temporarily in the school mentioned against his name with immediate effect with the condition to participate in forth coming General Teacher Transfer Drive:- Sr. No . Sen. No as TGT 01.07.2020 Name designation and present place of posting as TGT Date of Birth Promoted as PGT Allotted Distt. 1 9242 Sh. Satbir Singh [088632], ESHM, GSSS Baghola [1124], Palwal 14.02.1972 PGT Sociology w.e.f. 13.069.202 5 (Notionally) Government Girls Senior Secondary School Palwal City [992], Palwal Order dated 10.12.2025 (Mark ‘Y’) “In compliance of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated 15.09.2025 in CWP No. 27369 of 2025, Sh. Satya Narain [039798], Elementary School Head Master, Government Middle School Ghoranwali (3056), Sirsa is hereby promoted to the post of PGT Hindi w.e.f. 13.06.2025 (Notionally) i.e. the date when his/her juniors have been promoted to the post of PGT Hindi in the Scheduled-I of Revised Pay Matrix of functional Pay Level 8 i.e. 47,600-1,51,100/- plus usual allowances as admissible from time to time with the condition that he firstly will be reverted from the post of Elementary School Head Master to the post of TGT Hindi. The posting order will be issued later on:- Sr. Seniority Name designation and present place of Promoted as PGT OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [5] No . Number as TGT on 30.11.2021 posting as TGT 1 948 Sh. Satya Narain [039798], ESHM, GMS Ghoranwali[3056], Sirsa PGT Hindi w.e.f. 13.06.2025(Notion ally) (emphasis added) 8. Interestingly, learned State counsel has vociferously argued that the petitioner, being ESHM, cannot be considered for promotion as PGT as the applicable Service Rules only prescribe TGT as the feeder cadre for the same. The same is also reiterated in the written instructions (Annexure ‘A’) issued by the respondent-Department and relevant part thereof is reproduced below: “It is further submitted that, as per the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2012, read in conjunction with the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules applicable to the School Education Department, the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) constitutes only recognized feeder cadre for promotion to the post of PGT. The scheme of service rules clearly prescribes a definite channel of promotion, which mandates that an employee must be borne on the cadre of TGT and fulfill the prescribed eligibility conditions before being considered for promotion to the post of PGT. There is no provision under the rules which permits or contemplates direct promotion from the post of ESHM to the post of PGT.” 9. For reasons best known to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, School Education Department, i.e. the issuing authority of orders dated 19.03.2026 (Mark X) and 10.12.2025 (Mark Y), one set of employees have been granted certain concessions i.e. reversion from ESHM to TGT, in order to make them eligible for the post of PGT while certain other employees, including the petitioner, have been categorically denied the same promotion for the reason of him not belonging to the TGT cadre. It is unclear as OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [6] to why the respondent-Department would only extend the option of reversion from ESHM to TGT, for the ultimate purpose of promotion as PGT, only to a select few employees while failing to even acknowledge the factum of this option for certain others. Unfortunately, the current factual matrix is illustrative of vices of arbitrariness, cherry-picking and favouritism, which have no place in matters of public employment. 10. The respondent-Department has clearly applied different yardsticks while considering the same promotion for identically-situated employees. Learned State counsel has also failed to put forth any material to justify the decision to favour certain candidates over their identically-situated counterparts. Thus, in absence of any intelligible differentia or rational basis for such discriminatory treatment, the action of the respondent-Department, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, is manifestly arbitrary and falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. The State, being a model employer, is expected to uphold principles of fairness, transparency and equal treatment in all service matters. However, when judged on these touchstones, the act and conduct of the respondent- Department proves to be wholly inconsistent with the constitutional ethos, which reflects rather poorly on the State. 11. At this juncture, it may be profitable to refer to the legal maxim- boni judics est causas litium dirimere, which calls upon the Judges to endeavour to ensure that the decisions rendered do not provide avenues for further litigation. In that vein, this Court is of the considered opinion that once a competent authority has granted a certain relief to one set of employees, their similarly- situated counterparts must not be forced to move the Courts by denying them an identical relief. The respondent-department has conspicuously facilitated promotion of certain similarly situated employees by undertaking a technical OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [7] reversion which was followed by retrospective promotion. In doing so, the respondent-department has indulged in cherry-picking thereby creating an avoidable burden of litigation on the courts, in contravention of public policy as well as litigation policy. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2014 INSC 735, while speaking through Justice A.K Sikri, made the following observations in this regard:- “23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: (1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [8] judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 12. Further, a two Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 942, speaking through Justice K.V. Viswanathan, opined as follows: “14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714] 15. In K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:- “19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ....” (emphasis added) CONCLUSION 13. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paras, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2025/10.07.2025 (Annexure P-9) is hereby quashed qua the petitioner. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department, is directed OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.9084 of 2026 [9] to consider the case of the petitioner by following the same drill as adopted previously to pass orders dated 19.03.2026 (Mark ‘X’) and 10.12.2025 (Mark ‘Y’) in favour of Satbir Singh and Satya Narain, respectively. Further, upon favourable consideration, the same benefits as extended to Satbir Singh and Satya Narain, including promotion to the post of PGT with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and grant of all consequential service benefits, be also extended to the petitioner. 14. Further, respondent No.1- Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, School Education Department shall also file a compliance report with the Registry of this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. Before parting with the present matter, it is clarified that this judgment shall operate in rem. The benefits extended to one set of similarly- situated employees cannot be withheld from their counterparts, in absence of any cogent reasons to justify the same. The respondent-Department is, accordingly, directed to ensure that similarly-situated employees are not compelled to approach this Court for identical reliefs. It is further made clear that any recurrence of such selective and arbitrary extension of benefits or concessions, amounting to impermissible cherry-picking among similarly-situated employees, shall invite appropriate and stringent action. 16. A copy of this order be provided to learned State counsel for information and compliance. ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 08, 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document