Devesh Goyal v. State Of Haryanaand Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17080-2026 Date of decision: 27.05.2026 Devesh Goyal ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional 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 certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondents. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant with retrospective effect from 24.05.2021 along with all consequential benefits arising thereupon.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the action of promoting the petitioner's junior while denying the same benefit to the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Haryana Local Bodies Department Directorate (Group-C) Service Rules, 1997. Further, despite the clarification issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, placing the petitioner below his junior, is not in terms of the merit list date 09.07.2021. The respondents have not passed any final order despite granting personal hearing on 08.07.2025 to rectify the error. NEHA 2026.05.29 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-17080-2026 -23.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has limited his prayer to the extent that the present petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided in a time bound manner by passing a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Additional A.G., Haryana puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would be considered by passing a speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent No.2.

6.

Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and respondent No.2 is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the claim 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 petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.05.2026 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No NEHA 2026.05.29 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh