1 CWP-21642 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21642 of 2026 Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Prem Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-14), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 30.04.2022 i.e. the date of his retirement or alternatively from the date of eligibility, along with all consequential benefits, including the grant of pay and allowances along with interest and refixation of his pension. 2. Undisputed facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 04.08.1983 and got various promotions upto the rank RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 CWP-21642 of 2026 of Inspector, vide order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure P-8), and thereafter he retired from the said post on 30.04.2022. 3. The case set up by the petitioner in the petition is that he was fully eligible for further promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, however, due to non-holding of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) periodically, he was not given promotion to the said post. The petitioner served a justice demand notice dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-12) upon the respondents claiming promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, his claim for promotion has wrongly been rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-14), which has been impugned in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not followed the instructions dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure P-11), wherein it has been provided that the meeting of the DPC shall be held every three months and due to inaction on the part of the respondents in not holding the meeting of the DPC from 23.09.2020 till the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30.04.2022, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was not considered. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 27.03.2026, passed in CWP-5302 of 2026 – Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab and others. 5. Learned State counsel, who appears on receipt of advance notice, submits that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022 as Inspector and while he was in RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 CWP-21642 of 2026 service, no person junior to him was ever promoted. The claim of the Inspectors for further promotion to the post of DSP was considered from time to time by holding meetings of the DPC and petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2022 and thereafter meeting of the DPC was held on 20.12.2022, wherein persons senior as well as junior to the petitioner were considered and promoted to the post of DSP, vide order dated 10.01.2023. No right of the petitioner has been infringed while the petitioner was in service, as none of his juniors were promoted. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner joined the Police Department as Constable on 04.08.1983 and rose upto the rank of Inspector and was also eligible for promotion to the post of DSP. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as Inspector on 30.04.2022. It is the case of the respondents that the meetings of the DPC were held from time to time and the claim of all eligible persons was considered and they were promoted to the post of DSP. A reference is made to the impugned order, which states as under: - “3. In this regard, it is intimated that in the Inspector seniority list, the revised seniority of the applicant i.e. Inspr. Prem Singh is 934 in District Cadre. He was granted "F" list as 06.07.2011. The name of the applicant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 14.12.2018. He was not promoted to the rank of DSP by the State Government vide order No. 4/238/2018-2H3/473-476 dated 25.01.2019 as his name was much lower in the seniority. The seniority no. of last Inspector of District Cadre i.e. Inspr. Satwinder RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 CWP-21642 of 2026 Singh, No. PRT/62, 453/PR is 688 who was considered and promoted to the rank of DSP by the State Government vide order dated 25.01.2019. The name of the applicant was again considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 22.02.2019. He was not promoted to the rank of DSP by the State Government vide order No. 4/31/2019-2H3/1185-1189 dated 05.03.2019 as his name was much lower in the seniority. The seniority No. of last Inspector of District Cadre i.e. Inspr. Surinder Chand, No. JRT/378, 330/JR is 816 who was considered and promoted to the rank of DSP by the State Government vide order dated 05.03.2019. Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 23.09.2020. The seniority No. of last Inspector of District Cadre i.e. Inspr. Mohan Dass, PRT/94, 389/PR is 922 who was considered and promoted to the rank of DSP (on Reserve Point) by the State Government vide order No. 4/161/2020-2H3/3859 dated 06.10.2020. It is further submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 20.12.2022. On the basis of this DPC, the immediate senior namely Inspr. Talwinder Singh, 70/JR, 299/BR (Inspr. Seniority No. 931) and junior namely Inspr. Manjit Singh, 10/FDR, 327/FR (Inspr. Seniority No. 948) were considered and promoted to the rank of DSP by the State Government order No. 4/172/2022-2H3/277 dated 10.01.2023. The applicant i.e. Inspr. Prem Singh, 437/PR retired from service on 30.04.2022 i.e. before the date his immediate senior and junior were promoted to the rank of DSP on 10.01.2023. Therefore, the applicant i.e. Inspr. Prem Singh, 437/PR (Retd.) is not eligible for promotion to the rank of DSP. 4. After considering the legal Notice served by you on behalf of Inspr. Prem Singh No. 437/PR (Retd.) from all RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5 CWP-21642 of 2026 legal aspects, the same is hereby rejected and filed, being devoid of merits.” 8. From the above reproduction, it is clear that in the revised seniority list, the petitioner was at Sr. No.934. He was granted “F” list on 06.07.2011. His name was considered in the DPC meeting held on 14.12.2018 but could not be promoted, vide order dated 25.01.2019, as his name was much lower in the seniority and the last Inspector who was promoted was having seniority at Sr. No.688. Again the DPC meeting was held on 22.02.2019 and the last Inspector who was promoted in the said meeting was at Sr. No.816 and the promotion orders were issued on 05.03.2019. Another DPC meeting was held on 23.09.2020, wherein also the last Inspector who was promoted, vide order dated 06.10.2020, was at Sr. No.922. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(4) SCT 1; Union of India and others v. Sangram Keshari Nayak, 2007(3) SCT 512 and Union of India and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, 2010(2) SCT 421 has held that the promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. The promotion can only be considered in terms of the rules governing the service of the employee as per seniority in the cadre. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in I. Chuba Jamir and others Vs. The State of Nagaland and others : 2010(1) SCT 183, held that mere eligibility does not confer any right for promotion. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed in Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 6 CWP-21642 of 2026 Amal Satpathi and others : 2024 INSC 906 has held that a person cannot claim promotion after retirement from service. The relevant portion from the said judgment reads as under: - “19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows: "18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: '4…….There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 7 CWP-21642 of 2026 gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent- writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.' 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: 'Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws'. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: 'there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State'. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 8 CWP-21642 of 2026 of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right. "Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 201, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana (1997) 6 SCC 538, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered" for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered" for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.' "20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 9 CWP-21642 of 2026 seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P. (2006) 10 SCC 346, in the following words: '37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…... 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 10 CWP-21642 of 2026 when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime." (emphasis supplied) 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No.1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision. 21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity. 22. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment dated 1st February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta and the judgment dated 26th June, 2019 passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside.” 12. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in CWP-25215 of 2022 – Tarsem Lal Garg v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 16.12.2024 : 2024 NCPHHC 163142 and similar claim raised by the petitioner (therein) has been rejected. RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 11 CWP-21642 of 2026 13. Now, coming back to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that no person junior to the petitioner was promoted while the petitioner was in service upto 30.04.2022 and periodical meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee were held and eligible Inspectors were considered and promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police strictly in terms of their seniority as Inspectors. It is also an admitted fact that when the meeting of the DPC was held on 20.12.2022, the Inspectors having seniority nos.923 to 933, who were senior to the petitioner and Inspector Manjit Singh (seniority No.948) were considered and promoted to the post of DSP on 10.01.2023 and at that time the petitioner was not in service. 14. The judgment passed in Kulwant Singh’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the said case, the employees were in service. 15. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (NAMIT KUMAR) 17.07.2026 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.24 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment