Reservation in promotion without rule amendment invalid: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that reservation in promotion cannot be implemented through executive instructions or judicial observations in the absence of a corresponding amendment to the statutory service rules. Declaring such promotions “ultra vires and contrary to the service rules”, Justice Sandeep Moudgil ordered retrospective promotions to general category employees to the posts of Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent.

The ruling came in a case where the petitioners were denied promotion while extending reservation benefits to their juniors. Their stand before the court was that the action was wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory framework governing promotions in Haryana Health Department.

Among other things, their contention was the denial was based on the department’s “subsequent application of reservation in promotion purportedly on the basis of judicial pronouncements without any corresponding amendment in the statutory service rules”.

Allowing the petitions, Justice Moudgil asserted: “The Constitution is not a charter of privilege but a framework of justice. The protection of disadvantaged sections is an enduring constitutional mandate. Yet it must be pursued through lawful means, consistent with the larger principles of equality and efficiency. The courts, as guardians of constitutional morality, must ensure that in seeking to uplift one section, the state does not inadvertently alienate another. Justice, to be just, must remain fair to all.” The petitioners were represented by advocates Ravinder Malik(Ravi), Garvit Mittal and Ritender Rathee.

Justice Moudgil made it clear that their exclusion, based on an inapplicable and extra-statutory reservation policy, amounted to arbitrary deprivation of service rights. Referring to the constitutional provisions, the court asserted Article 16(4) empowered the state to provide reservation at the entry level, its extension to promotions was not automatic.

“Although Article 16(4A) expressly empowers the state to provide for reservation in promotions, including consequential seniority, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes that are not adequately represented in state services, such reservation must arise from specific provisions or rules framed by the state to give effect to this objective,” the bench held.

Emphasising that reservation in promotion “affects existing service structures, seniority, and the rights of those already within the cadre”, Justice Moudgil asserted it must be applied “with greater circumspection and only through specific statutory authorisation”.

Justice Moudgil added the respondent department’s attempt to “introduce reservation in promotion by executive action by drawing inspiration from judicial decision without any amendment to the statutory rules” was impermissible.

“Such an approach disregards the balance that the framers of the Constitution, and later the Supreme Court, have sought to maintain between social justice and administrative merit,” the court added. Referring to the need to maintain fairness in public employment, the bench observation promotion in public service was not merely a procedural elevation. It represented institutional recognition of merit, experience, and dedication. “When employees who have consistently performed well are displaced due to earlier accelerated promotions granted under the umbrella of reservation, the equilibrium between inclusion and fairness is disturbed.”