October 15, 2025 Pr 2022 CWP-2832-2022 v. Haryana Vidy a Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and and another 2. Ajay SUS
Case Details
1 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1. Raj Kumar and another Raj Ku Reserved on:-09.10.2025 , 2025 Pronounced on: October 15, 2025 Pr 2022 CWP-2832-2022 .....Petitioner ioners SUS VERSUS Haryana Vidy a Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and and another 2. Ajay SUS VERSUS Haryana Vidy a Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and and others 3. Virender Kumar Virend SUS VERSUS Haryana Vidy a Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and and others 4. Daljeet Kumar Daljee The State of H ate of Haryana and others SUS VERSUS PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document .....Responden ondents 2024 CWP-31655-2024 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents 2023 CWP-4942-2023 .....Petitioner ioners .....Responden ondents 2022 CWP-4154-2022 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents 2 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters 5. Sanjeev Kumar Sanjee State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS VERSUS 2023 CWP-7253-2023 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate w Advocate for the petitioner in CW cate with Mr.Varunveer Chauhan, r in CWP-2832-2022. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for 023. te for petitioner in CWP-7253-2023.
Legal Reasoning
In our view, one of the importan ule itself. According to the Rules, ota is from Junior Engineers with the grade "and" possessing a deg e Rule does not say from which d rvice has to be counted, but there ars of regular service as also a degr heme of 50 percent promotion fro ord "with" seven years of regul ssessing a diploma in Electric stinction is between the diploma ho e period of service rendered as a stinction between the years serv tained the degree. Accepting the ount to insertion into the requirem pulated. Further, this is how the Ru epartment, the framers of the Rules, a en uniformly implemented in the iod of time. In view of the above, d f the rtant aspects is the wording of the ules, 50 percent of the promotion tion vice with three years of regular service ing. degree in Electrical Engineering. ich date the time period of regular ular hree ere is a twin requirement of three degree. As against this, the second ond from Junior Engineers uses the the and egular service in the grade and the the ectrical Engineering. Thus, and a holder and the degree holder and any s a Junior Engineer without any served prior to or after having ving ould the plea of the Appellant would irement of the Rules, which is not not e Rule has been understood by the the have les, and accordingly, the Rules have the Electricity Department over a er a n to ve, due weightage must be given to s.” (Emphasis supplied) e view of the framers of the Rules.” 15. Further, a Division Bench of th 84 of h of this Court in CWP No. 2784 of 2015, titled a titled as ‘Jai Prakash Sharma and O r of nd Ors. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax, Haryana and Ors.’ (decided o avour ided on 01.10.2015), ruled in favour of the petitio petitioners in that case, holding that it ire the that it is not necessary to acquire the prescribed ex bed experience only after obtaining th n. The ing the educational qualification. The Bench placed placed reliance on the judgments of th D. ts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Stephen Jose Joseph (supra), M.B. Joshi (supra ra), upra), Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) and A.K. Rag . Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopa 000) opal Chandra Nath & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 30. Im . Importantly, the Court distinguis from tinguished the facts of that case from those in K.K K.K. Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housin 474, ousing Board (2015) 1 SCC 474 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters observing tha ing that the issue before it did not co the not concern any dispute inter se the Diploma hold a holders and Degree holders. Releva ement Relevant paragraphs of the judgement of the Divisio Division Bench are reproduced as unde s under: “Very recently, the same issue a Court in K.K.Dixit Vs. Rajasth 2014 (4) SCT 219 wherein the p Project Engineer (Senior) from (Juniors) who were Diploma experience of service. The Diploma holders and the Degre held that the qualifications of service had to be post the acq present case, as noticed, the issu the Diploma holders and Degr that a person has to be a gradu must have the experience of wor private employment or on the ac the experience as a Consulting than 10 years, has been made conditions. sue again came up before the Apex pex jasthan Housing Board & others hers ts of the promotions were to the posts of from amongst the Project Engineer neer total loma holders with 7 years total een he dispute was again between egree holders. Accordingly, it was was e of s of AIME and the experience of acquisition of the degree. In the the e issue is not of any dispute inter se er se vide Degree holders. The Rules provide raduate in Civil Engineering and he d he ent, f working either under Government, tive, he academic side. In the alternative, lting Engineer, Valuer of not less less tain ade mandatory, subject to certain The observations made by th A.K.Raghumani Singh (supr (supra) would squarely apply justified in reading the qualific and implying that experience acquisition of the degree. e of y the Apex Court in the case of supra) and Anil Kumar Gupta upta ply and the respondents were not not ord alification into the conjective word the nce had to be subsequent to the In such circumstances, the qu favour of the writ petitioners t the experience under the Rule educational qualifications and 31.12.2014 (Annexure P11), is q allowed…”
Arguments
Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate for t 2022. - te for the petitioner(s) in CWP-4154- Mr. Sardavinder Goyal with Mr. the petitioner in CWP-4942-202 2023. e for th Mr.Nishant Sindhu, Advocate for Mr. Bhim Kumar Bagri, Advoca 31655-2024. dvocate for petitioner in CWP- Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for r CWP-31655-2024. te for respondents No.1 and 2 in Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for th CWP-4154-2022. e for the respondents No.2 and 3 in Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate for 4154-2022. ate for respondent No.4 in CWP- Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for 2832-2022,CWP-4942-2023 and ate for respondent-HVPNL in CWP- 23 and CWP-7253-2023. **** **** PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. This common order shall dispo civil l dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions titions as they arise from a similar fa or the ilar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevit brevity, the facts are taken from CWP CWP-2832-2022. 2. The present civil writ petition h le 226 ition has been filed under Article 226 of the Const Constitution of India for the issuan re of issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to to quash the Final Ranking List d ure P- List dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure P 11) of JE/Ci JE/Civil under the 18% Degree Ho nd to ee Holders Promotion Quota and to further restra restrain the Respondents from rever their reverting the Petitioners from their present prom t promoted posts. FACTUAL B UAL BACKGROUND 3. Briefly stated, the Petitioners are idyut ers are employees of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nig n Nigam Limited (hereinafter, ‘HVPN ned as ‘HVPNL’). Petitioner No. 1 joined as a Junior Eng or Engineer (Civil) on 25.07.2008, a ed on 008, and Petitioner No. 2 joined on 23.07.2008. T 008. The Petitioners subsequently acq Civil tly acquired their BE degrees in Civil Engineering o ering on 20.03.2013 and 21.09.2015, r 015, respectively. 4. The genesis of the present disp ion of t dispute lies in the interpretation of Regulation 9 tion 9 of the PSEB Service of E itment of Engineers (Civil) Recruitment Regulations, tions, 1965 (as applicable to HVPNL) to (hereinafter ‘1965 ‘1965 Regulations’) tions’). Vide a notification dated 14 ), the ted 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-1), the Respondent dent-Nigam amended Regulation 9 f the tion 9. The relevant part of the regulation fo ion for promotion to the post of Assis er the f Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the 18% quota fo uota for degree-holders is reproduced a uced as under: PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters “(ii) F Regula service ii) From amongst Engineering gulation -2(g) possessing AMIE/B rvice as JE/Civil.” (Emphasis suppli supplied) in in ing Subordinates as defined ears IE/BE qualification with 5 years 5. Relying on this notification, wh ervice on, which required 5 years of service as a JE wheth whether before or after acquiring the E, the ng the qualification of AMIE/BE, the Petitioner No ner No. 1 was promoted as Assistant .2013 istant Engineer (Civil) on 05.12.2013 (Annexure P ure P-2) and Petitioner No. 2 was p gineer was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 23 on 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-3). There eived . Thereafter, both Petitioners received further promo promotions based on their service in t ineer. ice in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. Petitioner No ner No. 1 was promoted as Assistant il) on sistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on 11.05.2016 (A 016 (Annexure P-4) and subsequently Civil) quently as Executive Engineer (Civil) on 10.07.201 07.2018 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner N sistant ner No. 2 was promoted as Assistant Executive En ive Engineer (Civil) on 01.03.2019 (A 19 (Annexure P-5). 6. In 2021, the Respondent-Nigam office Nigam took a decision, vide office order dated dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-7), s 2006 7), stating that the original 2006 notification ( ation (Annexure P-1) contained an t was d an “inadvertent mistake.” It was asserted that d that the intent of the rule-making aut ire “5 ing authority was always to require “5 years service service as such” (i.e., after acquiring ot “as quiring the BE degree) and not “as JE/Civil.” Co il.” Consequently, a “correction” was dated ” was issued vide office order dated 13.05.2021, r 021, replacing the words “as JE/Civ aking JE/Civil” with “as such” and making this change e ange effective retrospectively from 14. om 14.11.2006. 7. Based on this retrospectively ap tative ely applied “correction,” a Tentative Ranking Lis g List (Annexure P-8) was issued. tailed ssued. The Petitioners filed detailed representation ntations (Annexures P-9 & P-10) ob nding 10) objecting to this list, contending PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters that their ac eir accrued rights and past promo ettled. promotions could not be unsettled. However, th er, the Respondents issued the imp ist on e impugned Final Ranking List on 14.01.2022 (A 022 (Annexure P-11). This list effect rs at a effectively places the Petitioners at a junior positio position, making them liable for reve long- eversion from their current, long held promoti romotional posts. Aggrieved by this f their this retrospective alteration of their seniority, the ty, the Petitioners have approached thi ed this Court. CONTENTI ENTIONS 8. Learned counsel for the petition d that petitioner(s) inter alia contended that the Petitioner oners were promoted as Assistant E dance stant Engineers strictly in accordance with the un he unambiguous language of the .2006 the notification dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P ure P-1), which explicitly prescribed ivil.” cribed “5 years service as JE/Civil.” Their further urther promotions to the posts of As er and of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive En ive Engineer were based on this va their his valid initial promotion and their subsequent se uent service, and do not suffer from an rom any infirmity. 9. It is argued that the decision da 7) ion dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-7) cannot be app be applied with retrospective effect fro oners, fect from 14.11.2006. The Petitioners, having receiv received multiple promotions over s ed an over several years have acquired an accrued right d right to those posts. Such vested rig by a ted rights cannot be taken away by a subsequent a uent amendment or “correction” appli st, the ” applied retrospectively. At best, the new interpre terpretation could only apply prosp of the prospectively from the date of the decision. Fur n. Furthermore, it is a settled princip ce, as principle of service jurisprudence, as upheld by the by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in num crued in numerous judgments, that accrued rights cannot cannot be extinguished by a retrospect ntext, ospective amendment. In this context, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters reliance was e was placed on the judgement of the H tate f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya P ya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava stava 2010(1) SCT 434. 10. Per contra, learned counsel f alia nsel for the respondents inter alia submitted tha ted that the original office order dat 1) er dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) contained an ed an “inadvertent mistake.” The prop ard of he proposal approved by the Board of Directors on rs on 27.10.2006 intended to use t ice as use the phrase “5 years service as such.” The u The use of “as JE/Civil” in the publi lerical ublished notification was a clerical error. The of he office order dated 13.05.2021 was of this 21 was, therefore, a correction of this typographica aphical mistake. 11. It is further argued that a clari a rule a clarification or correction in a rule always relate relates back to the date of its incepti inally ception. Since the rule was originally intended to d to read “as such” in 2006, the 2 pplies the 2021 correction rightly applies retrospectivel ectively from 14.11.2006. This is n but a is is not a fresh amendment but a rectification ation of an error to reflect the true arned true intent of the framers. Learned counsel place l placed reliance on the judgement of urt in ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S. Garewal ewal Vs. State of Punjab 1993 (3) S (3) SCT 503. OBSERVAT RVATION & ANALYSIS 12. I have heard the learned cou have d counsel for the parties and have perused the r d the record with their able assistance pinion istance. This Court is of the opinion that the issue e issue involved in the present is no stands is no longer Res integra and stands settled by the by the judgements of the Hon’ble Ap Bench ble Apex Court. A Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.B. Jo ndey B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey (1993) Supp upp. (2) SCC 419 has held that w where the rules provide that the at the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters diploma-hold holders having obtained a degree o Sub- gree of engineering working as Sub Engineers sh ers shall be eligible for promotion fter 8 otion as Assistant Engineers after 8 years experie xperience and 10% posts are reserved ce the served for that category, then once the person while while working as sub-engineer acq comes er acquires the degree, he becomes entitled for for the incentive of acceleration i years tion in promotion. If these 8 years counted from d from the date of acquiring qualifi se of qualifications the whole purpose of prescribing in bing incentive is defeated. Further, as ple of er, as per the well settled principle of service jurisp jurisprudence, in the absence of spec ongst of specific rule the seniority amongst persons holdi s holding similar posts in the same cad on the me cadre has to be determined on the basis of lengt f length of service not from the date o m any date of acquiring degree or from any other fortuito ortuitous circumstance. The Hon’ble ustice n’ble Court speaking through Justice N.M. Kasliw asliwal observed as follows: “13. If the ve educat service obtain such a before advanc relief Pande that S 23.8.19 In tha 1995 a when Assista counte adding If we accept the contention of M e very scheme and the purpose o ucational qualification by diploma rvice in case the period of 8 year aining graduate degree in enginee ch argument was raised even from fore the Tribunal. If such interpr vanced by Mr. Ashok Sen, learned lief could have been granted to t ndey. We would illustrate the abo at Shri Satish Kumar Pandey had .8.1980, but had acquired the degre that situation, Mr Satish Kumar 95 and he could not be considered hen these Sub-Engineers were c ssistant Engineers. Even otherwise unted from the date of acquiring ding the qualification during the feat of Mr. Ashok Sen, it would defeat ding ose of giving incentive of adding loma-holders while continuing in g in e of years is counted from the date of gineering. It may be noted that no t no from the side of the respondents ents o be terpretation as now sought to be rned senior counsel is accepted, no , no mar to the respondent Satish Kumar facts above position on admitted facts had joined as Sub- Engineer on r on 987. egree of engineering in May, 1987. ar becomes eligible only in May, ay, ered as eligible in December 1989 989 as re considered for promotion as rwise, if this period of 8 years is rs is ring degree then this incentive of e of and the continuation of service and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters getting for all tting the advantage of acceleration r all practical purposes become nug ould tion in promotion in 8 years would nugatory and of no benefit. 14. It Govern promo such p upheld settled specifi the sam service It is further important to note th overnment itself has been adopti omotion as contended by the app ch practice. In N. Suresh Natha held the practice followed by the ttled principle of service jurisprude ecific rule, the seniority amongst pe e same cadre has to be determined rvice and not on any other fortuitou , the te that in the cases before us, the dopting the practice and making king ding appellants and we are upholding had athan's case also this Court had the Government. It is also well well any rudence that in the absence of any st persons holding similar posts in ts in h of ined on the basis of the length of uitous circumstance. xx xx x xx xx . In these circumstances mentioned ew that the Tribunal was wrong in e date of acquiring degree of engine termined on the basis of length o gineer and the State Government w s no infirmity in the orders pa 16. In view th the dat determ Engine was n (Emphasis supplied) (Emph ioned above, we are clearly of the the rom g in determining the seniority from been gineering and it ought to have been Sub- th of service on the post of Sub ent was right in doing so and there here ….” s passed by the Government….” 13. The judgement in M.B. Joshi y the oshi (supra) was followed by the Two-Judges dges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme h v. preme Court in D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of Ind f India & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 753 an hes of and the Three-Judges Benches of the Hon’ble C n’ble Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. M elhi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2000) 1 SC SCC 128 and Chandravathi P.K Ors. P.K. & Ors. v. C.K. Saji & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC SCC 734. 14. The issue was examined again of the again by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Ape le Apex Court in T. Valsan v. K. K 614, K. Kanagaraj 2023 (7) SCC 614 wherein the R n the Rules initially provided that 80 sistant at 80% of the vacancies for Assistant Engineer we er were to be filled by promotion a tment. tion and 20% by direct recruitment. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters Promotion w tion was open to Junior Engineers with olding rs with three years’ service if holding a Degree in E ee in Electrical Engineering, and seve g only d seven years’ service if holding only a Diploma. A ma. A subsequent amendment earma posts earmarked 50% of promotional posts for Degree gree-holder Junior Engineers with d the with three years’ service, and the remaining 5 ing 50% for Diploma-holders wit . The s with seven years’ service. The significance o cance of this scheme was that Degree ars of egree holders required fewer years of service for p for promotion, whereas Diploma ho issue ma holders required more. The issue before the C the Court was whether a Diploma- egree -holder, who acquired a Degree during servic service, could count his pre-degree ifying egree service towards the qualifying period for pr for promotion to Assistant Engineer. resaid ineer. After examining the aforesaid judgments, th nts, the Hon’ble Court held that no di tween t no distinction can be drawn between the period of iod of service rendered before or afte egree, or after the acquisition of the degree, so long as th as the degree is acquired and is the of the is the basis for consideration of the promotion. A tion. Accordingly, for the Department D. tment concerned, the view taken in D. Stephen Jose Joseph (supra) was declared to be t on’ble to be the applicable law. The Hon’ble Apex Court s ourt speaking through Justice S.K. Ka .K. Kaul has held as follows: “19. O urged is no m Chakk SCC 6 been e observ On examining the controversy in ged and the judicial precedents, we no more res integra in view of the hakkaravarthy & Ors. v. M. Satya C 652. Though it is a two-Judges en examined, which is really sought served in para 10 as under: sy in the context of the arguments ents ssue , we can say that actually, the issue f the judgment of this Court in C. n C. ) 16 atyavathy, IAS & Ors. (2015) 16 has ges Bench view, the very issue has was ught to be debated before us. It was "There is, in our opinion, consid of the petitioners. There is no g unequivocally declared that pro onsiderable merit in that submission sion has no gainsaying that this Court has tant t promotion to the post of Assistant PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters Engineers in the service shall merit alone and that seniority taken as an input for determini also very clearly rejected the Government whereby the date acquired his degree qualificatio factor. That being so, and candidates eligible for consid entitled to adopt the method consideration based on the num the Government relied upon the that objective it committed no f whether the Government cou candidates not by reference to cadre but by reference to the acquired the eligibility which, dependent upon the date on wh degree qualification. Since, h degree qualification itself was uniform criterion, test or proce qualification was acquired and the candidate attained their el anything but uniform and nond date of acquiring eligibility and a Section Officer/Junior Eng opinion, a more intelligible, fa be applied for drawing-up the l review DPC. Inasmuch as the date of acquiring eligibility as t list of eligible candidates, it com to be corrected." and hall be on the basis of merit and iority of the candidates cannot be t be has mining such merit. This Court has the the procedure followed by the date on which the candidate had had ning ication was taken as a determining and given the large number of r of nsideration the Government was was e of ethod of restricting the zone of number of vacancies. Inasmuch as h as ving the DoPT guidelines for achieving r, is no fault. The question, however, is could draw-up a list of eligible ible the ce to the length of service in the the date on which the candidates ates ich, as noticed earlier, was itself tself the n which the candidate acquired the e, however, the acquisition of a of a ntly was not based on any consistently ch a rocedure, the date on which such a and resultantly the date on which hich o be ir eligibility was also bound to be nondiscriminatory. As between the the and the date of entering service as as our Engineer the latter was, in our e, fair and reasonable yardstick to k to the list of eligible candidates by the the the s the review DPC relied upon the as the basis for preparation of the f the eeds t committed a mistake which needs 20. A r the po alone. determ qualify period depend qualify . A reading of the aforesaid paragra e post of Assistant Engineer was to one. The seniority of candidates cou termining such merit. In this meri alifying prescription to be so con riod spent in the service as Juni pendent on whether the person h alifying Diploma. There was no ne n to agraph shows that the promotion to erit as to be based on merit and merit could not be taken into account for t for as a merit-based selection, there was a considered on merits. The time time Junior Engineer was at variance ance or a on had a qualifying Degree or a orm o necessity for a Degree to perform PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters the jo distinc to take method earlier e job of a Junior Engineer, and stinction only came into play when take effect. Thus, as to when the p ethod of advancement of his know rlier consideration in the time perio The and all persons were alike. The hen the merit-based promotion had had he person obtained the degree as a as a o an nowledge and entitling him to an period would not be relevant. xx xx x xx xx 22. A t (supra includi (1995) v. Gop State o of thes any st proviso an inc seniori . A three Judges Bench of this Cour upra) referred to a number of ea cluding D. Stephen Joseph (supra), 995) 4 SCC 419, Anil Kumar Gupta Gopal Chandra Nath (2000) 4 SCC ate of Bihar (2004) 3 SCC 723 and q these judgments. The principle laid y statutory provision or rule ma oviso appended to Article 309 of th incumbent is appointed to the p niority has to be counted from the d Ors. Court in Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. f earlier judgments on the issue, sue, ra), Satpal Antil v. Union of India ndia ingh upta (supra), A.K. Raghumani Singh SCC 30 and Pramod K. Pankaj v. aj v. and quoted with approval of the last last e of laid down is that in the absence of made thereunder or under the the of the Constitution of India, once once their the post according to rules, their the date of appointment. 23.In S 36 tha the ser from interpr basis import Depart prior to para (supra) case, it was noticed in para In Shailendra Dania & Ors. (supr a relevant aspect while construing uing that the past practice would be a re tself oned judgment distinguished itself e service rule. The aforementioned a) case on the ground that the the om D. Stephen Joseph (supra) c d be determined on a case-to-case case terpretation of the rules would be are rules as well as past practices are sis, and the wordings of the rules the present case, the Electricity icity portant criteria. Similarly, in the vice epartment has a past practice of co of considering the years of service ree. ior to the acquisition of the degree 24. Th noticed aspect presen was incenti pursui compa consid years o The principle of past practice bein ticed in M.B. Joshi (supra) case. Th pect where there are two chann esent case) and illustrates that if t not to be counted, then there centive to acquire the higher de rsuit. The incentive is that if you mpared to a diploma, you come nsideration, albeit on merit, in a ars of service required in the cadre been being of significance has also been s the e. This judgment also discusses the annels for promotion (as in the the vice t if the total time period of service ere could not be said to be any any r degree except as an academic emic e as f you acquire a higher degree as me into a channel which entitles titles r of n a fast lane with less number of dre. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters 25. In Rule i quota in the The R service years o schem word posses distinc the pe distinc obtain amoun stipula Depar been u period the vie
Decision
e question of law is answered in d in gain ers that it is not necessary to gain the Rules, after the acquisition of the and accordingly, the order dated ated n is s quashed and the writ petition is plied) (Emphasis supplied) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters 16. This Court is of the considered ase is dered opinion that the present case is squarely cov ly covered by the judgments of the D. f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Stephen Jos Joseph (supra), M.B. Joshi (sup upta (supra), and Anil Kumar Gupta (supra). As e . As emphasized by the Hon’ble Ap f past le Apex Court, the principle of past practice assum e assumes significance in construing se of the uing service rules. Regulation 9 of the 1965 Regulat egulations provided that 18% of the er are f the posts of Assistant Engineer are reserved for d for Engineering Subordinates poss cation s possessing AMIE/BE qualification with 5 years years of service ‘as JE/Civil’. Prior to n, the rior to the correction/clarification, the consistent pr ent practice of the respondent-Nigam w no Nigam since 2006 was to draw no distinction b tion between service rendered befor f the before or after acquisition of the AMIE/Degre Degree. It was in this manner that the d and hat the regulation was understood and applied, and , and on that basis, the petitioners we if the ers were promoted. Thus, even if the use of the w the words ‘as JE/Civil’ instead of ‘ of an d of ‘as such’ was the result of an ‘inadvertent rtent error’, it is not disputed th has ted that the respondent-Nigam has considered s ered service rendered before the ac ee as the acquisition of AMIE/degree as qualifying se ing service for promotion under the 18 the 18% quota. 17. As noted earlier, the Hon’ble Ap pra) ble Apex Court in M.B. Joshi (supra) emphasized t sized that it is a well-settled principle hat, in ciple of service jurisprudence that, in the absence sence of any specific rule, seniority a imilar iority among persons holding similar posts in the s n the same cadre must be determined o ervice ined on the basis of length of service and not on an t on any other fortuitous circumstance of the stance. Therefore, this Court is of the considered vi ered view that the principles laid down ra), down in D. Stephen Joseph (supra) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters M.B. Joshi ( shi (supra), and Anil Kumar Gupt rn the Gupta (supra) squarely govern the t hand. issue at hand. 18. Furthermore, with regards to th lity of s to the retrospective applicability of the correctio rrection/clarification, a Two-Judge B preme dge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sre Sree Sankaracharya University o Dr. sity of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and A nd Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC ustice e SC 640, speaking through Justice B.V. Nagarat agarathna, has held as follows: “38. Fr culled 8. From the aforesaid authorities, th lled out: d be es, the following principles could be i) If a statute is curative or mere i) law, retrospective operation thereo law ious erely clarificatory of the previous ereof may be permitted. o be order/provision/amendment to be ii) In order for a subsequent ord ii) the previous law, the pre-amended ded con considered as clarificatory of the en it e or ambiguous. It is only when it law ought to have been vague or law nably interpret a provision unless less wo would be impossible to reasonabl , that the amendment is considered ered an an amendment is read into it, tha and claration of the previous law and to be a clarification or a declara to ely. therefore applied retrospectively. the iii) An explanation/clarification iii) scope of the original provision. sco the tion may not expand or alter the iv) Merely because a prov iv) cla clarification/explanation, the Co statement in the statute itself, bu sta nature of the amendment and th nat rea reality a clarificatory or declarato substantive amendment which is i sub . which would apply prospectively. wh a is described as a provision Court is not bound by the said said the f, but must proceed to analyse the s in nd then conclude whether it is in aratory provision or whether it is a is a and is intended to change the law and 39. Ap presen Applying the law as discussed h esent case, we are of the view tha the ed hereinabove to the facts of the ent that the subsequent Government PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters rder dated 29-3-2001 cannot be de Order erefore be made applicable retros therefo bstantively modified the Governme substa e extent of stating that teachers who the ext vance increments for having a PhD advanc r advance increments at the tim for ad lection grade. As noted above, the la selectio ust not have the effect of saddling a must n rden or withdrawing from any burden owever, the Government Order date Howev igibility of Lecturers for advance eligibi acement in the selection grade, onl placem PhD d D degree at the time of recruitmen me. same. and be declared as a clarification and etrospectively. The said order has has 9 to rnment Order dated 21-12-1999 to it of who had already got the benefit of PhD degree, would not be eligible ible the time of their placement in the the law provides that a clarification tion ing any party with an unanticipated ted efit. any party an anticipated benefit. dated 29-3-2001 has restricted the the of ance increments at the time of a , only to those who do not have the tment and subsequently acquire the xx xx x xx xx 42. Fu been d issued Court in nat subseq that it which favour was n Theref effect. Further, merely because the subs en described as a clarification/expl sued following a clarification that ourt is not bound to accept that the nature. On an analysis of the tr bsequent Government Order dated at it is not merely clarificatory, bu hich seeks to withdraw the benefit vour of a certain category of Lect as not anticipated under erefore, such an amendment ca fect.” (Emphasis supplied) has subsequent Government Order has explanation or is said to have been been , the hat was sought in that regard, the t the said order is only clarificatory tory e true nature and purport of the the view ated 29-3-2001, we are of the view y, but is a substantial amendment ent ts in efit of two advance increments in awn Lecturers. The benefit withdrawn the previously existing scheme. eme. the ctive t cannot be given retrospective 19. The aforementioned observatio by a rvations were recently upheld by a Two-Judge B dge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme C anni reme Court in V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of of India 2024 SCC Online SC 26 aking C 2642 wherein the Court speaking through Justi h Justice Sandeep Mehta has held as fo d as follows: “43. clarific 3. If a Government Order is trea arification of an earlier Governm treated to be in the nature of a of a ade ernment Order, it may be made PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters applica Order Govern retrosp vested entail culled Univer plicable retrospectively. Conversely rder is held to be a modificatio overnment Order, its application trospective application thereof wo sted rights which is impermissible tail recoveries to be made. The p lled out by this Court in a recent ju niversity of Sanskrit v. Dr. Manu in t ent rsely, if a subsequent Government ication/amendment of the earlier rlier as ation would be prospective as l of f would result in withdrawal of ible in law and the same may also also ere he principles in this regard were arya nt judgment of Sree Sankaracharya in the following terms... xx xx x xx xx Applying these principles to the ca 44. Ap at the subsequent GO dated 4th that th mply as a clarification and therefo simply trospectively. The said GO has subs retrosp verning seniority in the Industrial govern rlier OM dated 4th November, earlier ders/circulars dated 24th Decemb orders 03, which were holding the fiel 2003, erefore, giving retrospective effect Theref 2015 w 15 would have catastrophic effect dre.” cadre. view he case at hand, we are of the view 4th August, 2015 cannot be read read able erefore cannot be made applicable ition substantively modified the position trial Establishments by reviving the the the ber, 1992, and supersedes the ary, cember, 2002 and 13th January, field over more than a decade. ade. ust, ffect to the GO dated 4th August, ntire ffect on the seniority of the entire 20. In the present case, there was ne ness neither ambiguity nor vagueness plied) (Emphasis supplied) in the pre- -amended Regulation 9, and it at the nd it cannot be contended that the provision wa on was incapable of reasonable interp quent interpretation without the subsequent correction/cla ion/clarification. As noted earlier, arlier, prior to its , insertion, the the respondent- -corporation made no distinction b before tion between service rendered before or after acqu r acquisition of the AMIE/Degree. T tently ree. The regulation was consistently understood a tood and applied in this manner, and ioners er, and on that basis, the petitioners were promot romoted to the post of Assistant Eng nt Engineer. The so-called correctio ection has, in effect effect, substantively altered the scop on by e scope of the original Regulation by PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters mandating th ting that the requisite five years of ser koned of service for promotion be reckoned only from the om the date of acquisition of the AM m the e AMIE/degree, rather than from the date of initia f initial appointment. The Hon’ble Su rically ble Supreme Court has categorically held that a c at a clarification cannot impose an u eprive e an unanticipated burden or deprive any party of a rty of an anticipated benefit. 21. Furthermore, the insertion of t tively n of the ‘correction’ has effectively resulted in w d in withdrawal of the vested rights mere rights of the petitioners. The mere description o tion of a provision as a ‘correction’ t bind ction’ or ‘clarification’ does not bind the Court. It urt. It is incumbent upon the Court to of the ourt to examine the true nature of the amendment r ment and determine whether it it ry or is genuinely clarificatory or declaratory, o tory, or whether it is in fact a subst g the substantive amendment altering the law, which c hich can only operate prospectively of the ctively. Accordingly, in view of the above, this C this Court holds that the so-called co is, in lled correction in Regulation 9 is, in substance, a s ce, a substantive amendment and cann ely to d cannot be applied retrospectively to recast the sen the seniority of the petitioners. CONCLUSI LUSION 22. In view of the foregoing discuss ion(s) iscussions, the present writ petition(s) are allowed owed. The Final Ranking List dated 1 11) of dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure P-11) of JE/Civil und il under the 18% Degree Holders P stands ers Promotion Quota hereby stands quashed inso d insofar as it retrospectively recasts oners. ecasts the seniority of the petitioners. While the R the Respondent-Nigam has the com ervice e competence to amend its service regulations, ions, the amendment to Regulatio dated ulation 9 vide office order dated PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 CWP P-2832-2022 and others connected cted matters 021 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-7) shall opera The operate only prospectively. The Respondents dents are directed to determine the ner(s) ne the seniority of the petitioner(s) accordingly ingly and are further restrained fro their ed from reverting them from their existing prom g promoted posts. 23. All the pending miscellaneous a stand eous application(s), if any, shall stand ed of. disposed of. 24. Photocopy of this order be place nected e placed on the files of the connected cases. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 15 P.C 15, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document