Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Deemed Promotions Granted in Excess of Quota; Holds Retrospective Seniority Violative of Service Rules and Articles 14 & 16
Case Name: Rahul Poonia v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 January 2026
Citation: CWP-9138-2023 and CWP-31658-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders granting deemed dates of promotion and consequential seniority to promotee Municipal Engineers in excess of the prescribed quota. The Court held that once the promotion quota under statutory service rules stands exhausted, no further promotions—actual or deemed—can be granted against that quota. It was further held that retrospective promotions and seniority from a date when promotees were not borne on the cadre are impermissible, particularly when such ante-dating prejudicially affects direct recruits and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitions were filed by direct recruit Municipal Engineers challenging a series of orders whereby private respondents, who were initially appointed as Junior Engineers, were granted deemed dates of promotion as Municipal Engineers with retrospective effect, mostly from 19 April 2012. The petitioners contended that such deemed promotions resulted in their being placed junior in the seniority lists of Municipal Engineers and Executive Engineers, despite having been validly appointed as direct recruits in September 2012.
The Court examined the Haryana Municipal Services (Integration, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2010, which prescribe a strict quota-rota system of 50% direct recruitment and 50% promotion for the post of Municipal Engineer. It was noted that the total sanctioned strength of Municipal Engineers was 99, limiting the promotion quota to 49 posts. Based on unrebutted material on record, the Court found that as early as 2012, there were already 53 promotees working as Municipal Engineers, meaning that the promotion quota had been exceeded even before the impugned deemed promotions were granted.
Relying on authoritative precedents including S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, Sonal Sihimappa v. State of Karnataka, M. Subba Reddy v. APSRTC and Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that quota rules framed under statutory powers are mandatory and binding, and cannot be diluted or breached on grounds of administrative exigency. The Court further held that no employee can be granted promotion or seniority retrospectively from a date when he was not borne in the cadre, especially when such retrospective conferment adversely affects the rights of direct recruits appointed in accordance with the rules.
The Court rejected the State’s contention that deemed promotions were granted merely because the promotees possessed the requisite degree qualification earlier. It was held that eligibility does not override the quota rule, and possession of qualification cannot justify promotions once the promotional quota stands exhausted.
Decision: Both writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders granting deemed dates of promotion, the tentative and final seniority lists, and the order rejecting the petitioner’s representation were quashed to the extent they placed the petitioners below the private respondents. The respondents were directed to re-determine seniority strictly in accordance with the 2010 Rules within three months and to grant all consequential benefits, including promotion and seniority, to the petitioners.