Rajender Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:29.05.2026 Rajender Kumar .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :
Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate, Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
**** HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (Oral) CM-9385-2026 Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for placing on record order dated 25.05.2026 and instructions dated 24.02.2017 as Annexures P-9 and P-10, respectively.
Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place. Main case 1.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner for promotion/appointment as Technical Director under the roster policy, with a deemed date of promotion, and to provisionally appoint the petitioner as Technical Director during the pendency of the present petition. It is further prayed that the promotion to the post of Technical Director be kept in abeyance and that representations dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-5), 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-6), and 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-7) be decided. 2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 17.06.1998 and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. It is submitted that the respondentdepartment issued instructions dated 15.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) regarding roster points in seniority lists. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 14.06.2016 and subsequently as Chief Engineer on 12.06.2025. It is further contended that the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers for the period from 01.07.1999 to 31.12.2016 was issued on 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-2), wherein the petitioner figures at Sr. No.120.
Learned counsel submits that one Shri Naveen Kumar Verma was promoted as Technical Director on the date of his retirement i.e. 30.04.2025, and the petitioner is similarly situated and entitled to the same consideration. 2.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that instructions dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) were issued regarding verification of roster registers for Group 'A' and 'B' posts. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) seeking consideration for promotion/appointment to the post of Technical Director under the roster policy. Reminders dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-6) and 13.05.2026 (Annexure P-7) were also submitted; however, no action has been taken thereon till date. It is also contended that out of six sanctioned posts of Technical Director, five posts are lying vacant, yet the claim of the petitioner has not been considered. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is due to retire on 31.05.2026 and, therefore, urgent consideration of his claim is warranted.
3.
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, Advocate puts in appearance and accept
notice on behalf of for respondents No.2 and 3. 6.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would be considered by passing a reasoned speaking order in accordance with the law by respondent(s)/competent authority.
7.
Therefore, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of and the respondent No.2/competent authority 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 one week 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 the respondents. 8.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 parul verma Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :
Yes/No