CWP-23454-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CWP-23454-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2026 Sanjay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No.2. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner, as the services of his junior have already been regularized. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 03.12.1997 at Government Primary School, Mitathal, District Bhiwani and he has rendered 28 years of unblemished service continuously. It is submitted that despite the petitioner’s long tenure and seniority, his services were regularized belatedly on 20.02.2023, whereas his junior, MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-23454-2026 2 Dhup Singh, who joined service in the year 1998, was regularized in the year 2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.35537 of 2025, which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation on 10.12.2025 as discernible from Annexure P-6, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the respondents failed to consider the fact that the petitioner's junior has already been regularized, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to regularization from the date his junior was regularized. The action of the respondents in regularizing a junior employee before the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and argued that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Class-IV employee against an unsanctioned post. The regularization of part-time employees is governed by the departmental regularization policy dated 11.11.2003, which provides for regularization of only those employees who were appointed up to 30.06.2003 based on a common District Level Seniority List prepared by the District Education Officer. He has further submitted that the petitioner was regularized on 20.02.2023 by the District Level Committee as per his position in the seniority list. It is argued that the MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-23454-2026 3 regularization of the petitioner was carried out strictly in accordance with the policy and based on the availability of vacant sanctioned posts. 4. With regard to the regularization of the junior employee, Dhup Singh, learned State counsel has submitted that his regularization was an inadvertent mistake and when the case of Dhup Singh was re- examined, it was found that he was junior to the petitioner and was wrongly regularized before him. Consequently, a show cause notice has already been issued to Dhup Singh on 07.03.2026 to explain his position and as such, the petitioner cannot claim any right based on the irregular and erroneous regularization of his junior. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his services from the date his junior employee was regularized, thereby claiming consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, and arrears. 7. It is an admitted fact available on record that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 03.12.1997 against an unsanctioned post in Government Primary School, Mitathal. The services of such part-time employees are regulated by the departmental regularization policy dated 11.11.2003. As per the said policy, a common District Level Seniority List of part-time Class-IV employees was prepared on 30.06.2003, which served as a reference point for MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-23454-2026 4 sponsoring names for regularization against regular sanctioned posts. The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 570 in the said seniority list. 8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was ultimately regularized on 20.02.2023 vide order No.E-4/2023/130-155, by the District Education Officer, Bhiwani. The regularization of the petitioner was carried out in accordance with the existing policy and based on his position in the seniority list, which is a transparent and objective criterion. 9. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his junior, Dhup Singh, was regularized in the year 2019, whereas the petitioner was regularized later in 2023. However, a careful examination of the facts reveals that the regularization of Dhup Singh was a mistake. The respondents have categorically stated in the impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) that the case of Dhup Singh was re-examined in light of the judgment of this Court passed in Pushpa Devi & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others (CWP No.16086 of 2019), wherein it was found that Dhup Singh was junior to the petitioner and was wrongly regularized before him. 10. In order to rectify the said inadvertent error, a show cause notice has already been issued to Dhup Singh by the Principal vide order No.738 dated 07.03.2026, asking him to explain his position. The respondents have already corrected the illegality in Dhup Singh’s regularization and as such, the petitioner cannot claim parity with an employee whose own regularization was itself wrong. MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-23454-2026 5 11. Furthermore, the petitioner's services were regularized in the year 2023 as per his seniority and eligibility under the applicable policy. The impugned order dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Director General, Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula, is a well-reasoned order, which clearly explains the factual and legal position. The petitioner cannot claim a right to be treated as a senior or claim seniority over others based on a juniors' irregular regularization, which itself is being corrected. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 13.08.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.08.19 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.