118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17442-2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Daya Nand ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.). Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.A.G., Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Lecturer in Electrical Engineering w.e.f. 24.10.2025 i.e. the date on which, respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of HOD Electrical Engineering vide order dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) with all consequential service benefits. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action/inaction of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion despite availability of sanctioned vacancy and eligibility of the petitioner. 2. Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that none of the juniors to the petitioner has been promoted. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Electrical Engineering), whereas, the employees referred to by the petitioner as his juniors, who were promoted vide order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-6), are not serving as Lecturers (Electrical Engineering). Further, NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-17442-2026 -2- a perusal of Annexure P-6 clearly indicates that none of the candidates mentioned in the said promotion order is serving as Lecturer (Electrical Engineering), except Poonam Sharma, who was appointed on 10.08.2007 i.e. prior to the appointment of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that six Lecturers have been promoted, whereas the petitioner has been ignored despite being eligible for promotion and availability of a vacancy. He further submits that respondent No.4 recommended the petitioner’s case for promotion on 09.01.2026, whereas certain juniors have subsequently been promoted vide order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-6). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner is decided by the respondent(s)/competent authority by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 5. Learned State counsel, appearing on advanced notice, submits that he has no objection in case a direction is issued to the respondent(s)/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 6. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent(s)/competent authority is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording him an opportunity to be heard, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-17442-2026 -3- petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by the respondent(s)/competent authority. 7. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No NEHA 2026.07.24 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh