Pr Dinesh Kuma Kumar and others State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
1 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-24888-2023(O&M) .2025 Reserved on:-24.09.2025 , 2025 Pronounced on: October 15, 2025 Pr Dinesh Kuma Kumar and others State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advoc Yadav, Mr. Gursimrat Sandhu an Advocates for the petitioners. Advocate with Mr. Tapan Kumar dhu and Mr. Aman Gautam, Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, H . AG, Haryana. Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for r te for respondent No.4. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has be 6/227 has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Const Constitution of India for the issuan re of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari qu quashing the impugned orders orders dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure exure P-11), 29.12 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-15), and 16), and 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-16), whereby the y the Petitioners have been reverted t Fire erted from the post of Assistant Fire Station Offic Officer/Sub Fire Officer to Leading F urther ding Fireman. The petitioners further pray for the or the issuance of a writ in the natu g the e nature of mandamus directing the respondents t dents to allow the petitioners to cont moted o continue to work on the promoted PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP post of Assi f Assistant Fire Station Officer/Sub nt all r/Sub Fire Officer and to grant all consequentia uential benefits. FACTUAL B UAL BACKGROUND 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners we by the ers were appointed as Fireman by the Deputy Com Commissioner, Gurugram in exercis ryana exercise of power under the Haryana Municipal S ipal Services (Integration, Recruitme vices) ruitment & Conditions of Services) Rules, 1982 1982 (hereinafter ‘1982 Rules’). Th ading ’). They were promoted as Leading
Decision
order pal Corporation, Gurugram vide order dated 25.11.2 25.11.2011, in the exercise of powers icipal powers under the Haryana Municipal Service Rules e Rules, 1998 (hereinafter ‘1998 Rules Rules’). 3. The genesis of the present disp of 97 nt dispute lies in the creation of 97 posts of S of Sub Fire Officer by the Go vide e Government of Haryana vide communicati nication dated 04.06.2014 to Director ryana. irector, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana. The Petitione titioners, along with others, filed CW CWP No. 262 of 2018 titled as led as ‘Mam Raj an aj and others v. State of Haryana a ing of na and others’ seeking quashing of advertisemen sement dated 19.12.2017 to the exten f Sub e extent vide which 26 posts of Sub Fire Officer fficer were advertised by the Depa direct Department to be filled by direct recruitment. T ment. The petitioners submitted that th nly by that the posts are to be filled only by way of prom f promotion as per the 1982 Rules a of the ules and 1998 Rules in light of the principle of “ le of “old vacancy, old rules” as laid preme s laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.V Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. J. Sre 3) 3 . Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., (1983) 3 SCC 284. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP 4. Vide judgment dated 13.09.201 Court .09.2018 (Annexure P-1), this Court allowed the w d the writ petition, directing the Resp ase of Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner titioners for promotion as per the 198 the 97 he 1982 Rules, observing that the 97 sanctioned po ned posts were vacant prior to the pro ryana the promulgation of the new Haryana Fire (Group C roup C) Service Rules, 2016 (hereinaf s had ereinafter, ‘2016 Rules’) and thus had to be filled by lled by promotion under the old rules. llows: rules. The Court observed as follows: “The r Service be foll posts a these p recruit promo he respondents cannot rely upon rvices Rules, 2016, as the principle followed by the department. Sinc sts are lying vacant prior to the p ese posts can only be filled by way cruitment. Further the similarly sit omoted by the department vide order pon the Haryana Fire (Group C) C) s to ciple of old vacancy old rule has to ned Since all the above 97 sanctioned he promulgation of the 2016 rules, ules, irect way of promotion and not by direct been y situated persons have also been rder dated 07.04.2017 (P-15). view of the above factual position, th In view th a direction to respondents to con with a r promotion, as per Haryana M for pr cruitment and Conditions of Ser Recrui approp propriate orders within a period o urt.” Court. on, the instant petition is disposed of d of consider the case of the petitioners ners tion Municipal Services (Integration Service) Rules, 1982 and pass pass this od of three months and inform this 5. In compliance, after departm nd a epartmental correspondence and a Contempt Pe pt Petition (COCP No. 484 of 2019 tment, f 2019), the Respondent-Department, vide letter etter dated 08.02.2019, directed t icipal cted the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, ation, Gurugram—being the compet 1998 ompetent authority under the 1998 Rules—to co to consider the case of the Petitioners ently, tioners’ for promotion. Consequently, the Petitione titioners were promoted to the po tation the post of Assistant Fire Station Officer/Sub F r/Sub Fire Officer vide order dated 26. by the ted 26.06.2020 (Annexure P-4) by the Commissione issioner, Municipal Corporation, Guru , Gurugram. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP 6. Subsequently, the Respondents ce ndents issued a show-cause notice dated 31.03.2 1.03.2022 (Annexure P-5), alleging t oid ab ging that the promotion was void ab initio as it wa s it was not passed by the competent a er the etent authority (the Director under the 2016 Rules) ules) and that no vacant posts exi . The ts existed under the old rules. The Petitioners ch ners challenged this notice in CWP N Court, WP No. 7273 of 2022. This Court, vide order d rder dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure P tition, ure P-8), disposed of the petition, directing the g the Petitioners to submit a reply to nd the ply to the show-cause notice and the competent au tent authority to consider the same as and in me as per the applicable rules and in light of the ju f the judgment in CWP-262-2018. 7. The Petitioners submitted a de .2023 d a detailed reply dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure P ure P-9) and were granted a per r, the a personal hearing. However, the Commissione issioner, Municipal Corporation, Gu ugned n, Gurugram, passed the impugned order dated ated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-11), dec r void 1), declaring the promotion order void ab initio. Thi io. This was followed by consequentia dated quential communications/orders dated 29.12.2023 ( 023 (Annexure P-15) and 06.01.202 rieved 1.2024 (Annexure P-16). Aggrieved by these actio e actions, the Petitioners have approac pproached this Court. CONTENTI ENTIONS 8. Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioners inter alia contends that the impugned ac ned action is in direct contravention o y this ntion of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Cou le Court in CWP-262-2018 and CW rt had d CWP-7273-2022. The Court had categorically rically directed the Respondents to con ers for to consider the case of petitioners for promotion u tion under the 1982/1998 Rules, an s the es, and the Commissioner was the designated co ated competent authority under those v at the those very rules. To now hold that the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP same Commi ommissioner lacked competence is a nt the ce is a subterfuge to circumvent the Court’s mand s mandate. It is submitted that the pe order the petitioners’ promotion vide order dated 26.06 26.06.2020 was not an independ f the ependent or arbitrary act of the Commissione issioner but a direct consequence o dings nce of the compliance proceedings initiated purs d pursuant to this Court’s order dated quent dated 13.09.2018 and the subsequent contempt pet pt petition. The competent authority i would ority in the case of petitioners would be Commissi missioner, Municipal Corporation, G from ion, Gurugram, as is discernible from letter dated 0 ated 08.02.2019 attached with the sho o.2 in the short reply of respondent No.2 in COCP No.48 No.484-2019 (Annexure P-2). The i s that The impugned order also states that the petitioner itioners neither fulfilled the required or the uired qualification/experience for the promotion to tion to the post of Sub Fire Station O sistant tion Officer nor any post of Assistant Fire Station tation Officer was lying vacant i ration cant in the Municipal Corporation Gurugram. 9. Furthermore, it is submitted that ents is ed that the action of the respondents is blatantly disc ly discriminatory. Several other simila from similarly situated co-petitioners from CWP No. 262 o. 262 of 2018, who were promoted i ations oted in other Municipal Corporations in complianc pliance with the very same High Cou ed to h Court order, have been allowed to continue in t e in their promoted posts. The petiti ingled petitioners alone have been singled out for revers reversion, which smacks of arbitrarine itrariness and malice. 10. Moreover, the impugned order d by the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Commissione issioner, Municipal Corporation, G o. 4) on, Gurugram (Respondent No. 4) suffers from from the vice of non-application of m the tion of mind. It is evident from the communicati nication dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure r, Fire exure P-10A) from the Director, Fire PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP and Emergen ergency Services (Respondent No. 2 r was t No. 2), that the Commissioner was merely actin acting under the dictation of a said of a superior authority. The said communicati nication categorically observed tha ioners d that the case of the petitioners regarding rev ng reversion be considered being void dance g void-ab-initio and not in accordance with 2016 R 016 Rules, thereby leaving the Comm ndent Commissioner with no independent discretion. A ion. An authority exercising quas t act quasi-judicial functions must act independently ndently and an order passed under dic yes of er dictation is a nullity in the eyes of law. 11. Per Contra, learned counsel and 3 unsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that s that the promotion order dated 26.0 as it d 26.06.2020 was void-ab-initio as it was not pas ot passed by the competent authori ioner, authority. While the Commissioner, Municipal C ipal Corporation, was the competent ealed petent authority under the repealed 1998 Rules, ules, the appointing authority for the under or the post of Sub Fire Officer under the currently rrently governing 2016 Rules is the gency is the Director, Fire and Emergency Services, Ha es, Haryana. Since the promotion wa , i.e., ion was granted on 26.06.2020, i.e., after the 201 e 2016 Rules came into force, only t red to only the Director was empowered to issue such a uch an order. The Commissioner's ithout oner's order was, therefore, without jurisdiction a ction and a nullity. 12. It is argued that the claim of th ted in of the petitioner has to be tested in the light of th ht of the factual matrix as prior to the order the passing of the promotion order of the petitio petitioners. Municipal Corporation G memo tion Gurugram vide its letter memo dated 16.01.2 6.01.2019 (Annexure R-2) has intima rength intimated that the sanctioned strength of Sub Fire Fire Officer under the old rules is 6 were es is 6 and that all these posts were PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP filled up. He p. Hence, there is no vacant post of he old ost of Sub Fire Officer under the old rules in Mun Municipal Corporation Gurugram pr rce of ram prior to the coming into force of the 2016 rul 16 rules. As such, in the absence of tioned nce of any availability of sanctioned posts for the or the promotional posts, the claim of ightly aim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 13. In rebuttal, learned counsel for t at the el for the petitioners contends that the respondents dents assertion that “no vacancy is a orrect y is available” is factually incorrect and deliberat liberately misleading. In their detailed notice etailed reply to the show-cause notice (Annexure P ure P-9), the petitioners had demonst ecific monstrated with reference to specific promotion or tion orders of other officials (dated 12. that a ted 12.12.2019 and 16.06.2020), that a total of five f five posts of Sub Fire Officer had r had fallen vacant in the Municipa icipal Corporation, ation, Gurugram, just prior to their p Three heir promotion on 26.06.2020. Three persons name s namely Sh. Narender, Sh. Sunil and were il and Sh. Mahender Singh who were working on t g on the post of Sub Fire Officer, G to the cer, Gurugram were promoted to the post of Fire S Fire Station Officers on 12.12.2019 a icer in 019 and three posts of Fire Officer in Municipal Co ipal Corporation became vacant. There more . Thereafter, on 16.06.2020 two more persons nam s namely Sh. Lalit Kumar and Sh also nd Sh. Ramesh Kumar were also promoted to ted to the post of Fire Station Officer to the fficer. Learned Counsel refers to the written statem statement filed on behalf of responde ts that pondents No.2 and 3 and submits that the responden pondents could not controvert the stan s with he stand taken by the petitioners with regard to crea to creation of post under 1982 Rules a short ules and further in para 8 of the short reply, it has it has been clearly mentioned that t b fire that there are six posts of Sub fire officers sanc s sanctioned in the Municipal Corp er the l Corporation, Gurugram under the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP Haryana Mun a Municipal Corporation Rules, 1998 b Fire , 1998 and no new post of Sub Fire Officer has b r has been sanctioned within the Munic Municipal Limits of Gurugram. 14. Learned counsel for the respond s were spondents submits that the posts were created in the in the year 2014 as one time measur were measure. Thereafter, these posts were filled and the nd they cannot continue to be govern . The governed by old Rules of 1998. The promotion, if tion, if any, would now be done under er the 2016 Rules. OBSERVAT RVATION & ANALYSIS 15. I have heard the learned cou have d counsel for the parties and have perused the r d the record with their able assistance on’ble istance. It transpires that this Hon’ble Court vide or ide order dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure 2018 nexure P-1) in CWP No. 262 of 2018 held that si hat since the 97 sanctioned posts the posts lying vacant prior to the promulgation ation of the 2016 rules, they can only otion an only be filled by way of promotion and not by d t by direct recruitment under the 1982 2016 e 1982 Rules and not under the 2016 Rules. Accor Accordingly, the Respondents were d ase of e directed to consider the case of the petitioner itioners for promotion under the 1982 by the 1982 Rules. No LPA was filed by the Respondents dents against the aforesaid judge dated judgement and thus, order dated 13.09.2018 a 018 attained finality. However, sinc y the r, since no action was taken by the Department i ent in complying with the directions 484 of ctions of this Court, COCP no. 484 of 2019 was file as filed by the petitioners. 16. In COCP No. 484 of 2019, a r irector 19, a reply was filed by the Director General, Ur l, Urban Local Bodies Departmen ryana artment-cum-Fire Service, Haryana (Annexure P ure P-2). It was stated that since the were e the 19 petitioners in that case were PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP serving in d in different districts and municipal n was nicipal corporations, a decision was taken vide let ide letter dated 08.02.2019 to ensure e ith the nsure expeditious compliance with the judgment of nt of this Court. Accordingly, it w ective , it was directed that the respective appointing a ting authorities of the petitioners w es for ers would consider their cases for promotion at tion at their own level in accordan . The cordance with the 1982 Rules. The concerned au ned authorities, being custodians of th cords, s of the petitioners’ personal records, were best pla est placed to assess their eligibility an ancies ility and the availability of vacancies under the 198 he 1982 and 1998 Rules. The letter fu reated tter further clarified that posts created or available e lable exclusively under the 2016 Rule y way 6 Rules were not to be filled by way of promotion otion under the earlier Rules. Thus, t ioners Thus, the promotion of the petitioners was to be co be considered only against the posts were posts of Sub-Fire Officer that were vacant under under the 1982 and 1998 Rules. 17. Consequently, in view of the va he old the vacancies available under the old Rules, promo promotion orders were issued by the ers of by the Municipal Commissioners of Panchkula an ula and Ambala, while the cases of were es of the remaining petitioners were under consid consideration at that time. Howeve ration, owever, the Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, vi ram, vide letter dated 16.01.2019, info re 9, informed that six posts of Sub-Fire Officer had b r had been sanctioned and all were alr cancy ere already filled, leaving no vacancy under the old the old Rules. Subsequently, vide com .2019, de communication dated 15.03.2019, the Commiss mmissioner, Municipal Corporation, G in the tion, Gurugram, reiterated that in the absence of an e of any vacancy under the old Rules, ioners ules, the promotion of the petitioners could not be ot be considered. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP 18. Despite the non-availability of v in the ty of vacancies, the petitioners in the present case w t case were promoted to the post of As r/Sub- of Assistant Fire Station Officer/Sub Fire Officer fficer vide order dated 26.06.2020 y the 2020 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Commissione issioner, Municipal Corporation, Guru ken in , Gurugram. As per the stand taken in the impugne pugned order dated 27.10.2023 (A as an 23 (Annexure P-11), this was an inadvertent m rtent mistake. Upon the matter being of the r being brought to the notice of the Government, ment, it took cognizance and issue dated issued directions vide letters dated 29.01.2021 a 021 and 25.06.2021 to the Commis ration, mmissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram to ram to rectify the error. Consequen were sequently, show-cause notices were issued to the to the petitioners, and vide the imp .2023 e impugned order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P ure P-11), their promotions were with e withdrawn. 19. A Two-Judge Bench of the H Y.V. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.V. Rangaiah (s h (supra), laid down the principle ’ and nciple of ‘old vacancy, old rule’ and held that any at any post that fell vacant prior to com rules to coming into force of the new rules would be gov be governed by the old rules and not on’ble d not by the new rules. The Hon’ble Court speakin peaking through Justice R.B. Misra ob isra observed as follows: “9. …U Septem year 1 Grade petitio the res rights occurr rules a the pa Grade on the . …Under the old rules a panel ha ptember. Accordingly, a panel sho ar 1976 and transfer or promotion rade II should have been made out titioners in the two representation p e respondents Nos. 3 to 15 would n hts of being considered for prom curred prior to the amended rules les and not by the amended rules. It e parties that henceforth promotion rade II will be according to the new the Statewide basis and therefo r in l had to be prepared every year in should have been prepared in the the trar otion to the post of Sub-Registrar out of that panel. In that event the t the on petitions who ranked higher than than their uld not have been deprived of their promotion. The vacancies which hich old ules would be governed by the old both . It is admitted by counsel for both otion to the post of Sub-Registrar trar new rules on the zonal basis and not not n of refore, there was no question of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP challen that oc doubt would allenging the new rules. But the que at occurred prior to the amended r ubt that the posts which fell vaca ould be governed by the old rules an e question is of filling the vacancies cies ed rules. We have not the slightest htest ules vacant prior to the amended rules s and not by the new rules.” 20. This Court is of the considered o m the ered opinion that, as evident from the plied) (Emphasis supplied) aforemention entioned communications, no post tation posts of Assistant Fire Station Officer/Sub r/Sub-Fire Officer were lying vaca ration, vacant in Municipal Corporation, Gurugram pr ram prior to the enforcement of the 2 , there the 2016 Rules. Consequently, there existed no v no vacancy under the old Rules. A f “old ules. Applying the principle of “old vacancy, old y, old rules,” any vacancy arising aft of the ng after the coming into force of the 2016 Rules, i ules, i.e., from 3rd June 2016, must be those ust be governed exclusively by those Rules. Unde Under the 2016 Rules, the Directo e sole irector of Fire Services is the sole competent au tent authority to grant promotions. Th f Sub- ns. Therefore, the five posts of Sub Fire Officer fficer that fell vacant in the Muni gram, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, pursuant to p nt to promotion orders dated 12.12.2 to be 2.12.2019 and 16.06.2020, are to be governed by ed by the 2016 Rules and not the earli bove, e earlier Rules. In view of the above, the promotio motion orders issued by the Commis ration, ommissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, w ram, were void ab initio, having been p , and been passed without jurisdiction, and were rightly w ghtly withdrawn. 21. Furthermore, the impugned ord exure ed order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-11) states states that the promotion orders o issued ers of the petitioners were issued inadvertently rtently and have consequently been e said been withdrawn to rectify the said error. In this In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme and preme Court in Union of India and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP another v. N v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC ustice SCC 750, speaking through Justice C.K. Thakker hakker has observed that even if an in son is f an ineligible or unqualified person is promoted, su ted, such a mistake can always be r e due s be rectified by following the due process of la s of law. The relevant Para of the j ingh f the judgement in Narendra Singh (supra) is rep is reproduced as under: “28. I respon But, w mistak always Counc Ors., errone employ correc court o 8. It is true that the mistake wa spondent was promoted though he t, we cannot countenance the submi istake cannot be corrected. Mistak ways be corrected by following d uncil of Agricultural Research & 1997 (4) SCT 156: (1997) 6 roneous promotion is given by wro ployer cannot be prevented from a rrecting the mistake. It may cause h urt of law cannot ignore Statutory R the was of the Department and the fied. he was not eligible and qualified. ubmission of the respondent that the t the can istakes are mistakes and they can g due process of law. In Indian dian h & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & n & at if ) 6 SCC 766, it was held that if wrongly interpreting the rules, the , the m applying the rules rightly and in d in ut a se hardship to the employees but a ry Rules.” 22. Moreover, this Court is consciou ion in nscious of the fact that the decision in Y.V. Rangaia ngaiah (supra) has been overruled b of the ruled by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Ape le Apex Court in State of H.P. v. Raj K . The Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773. The Court, speaki speaking through Justice Pamidighant ld that ighantam Sri Narasimha has held that there is no in s no inflexible or universal principle must ciple mandating that vacancies must invariably be bly be filled under the rules prevailing stead, vailing at the time they arose. Instead, a candidate’s idate’s right is limited to being conside ect on onsidered under the rules in effect on the date of co e of consideration, i.e., the rules curr nment currently in force. The Government is well within within its authority to adopt a deliber thhold deliberate policy decision to withhold filling vacan vacancies that existed prior to t rules. to the amendment of the rules. Consequently uently, employees cannot claim any v ed for any vested right to be considered for PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP promotion un tion under the repealed rules once su been nce such a policy decision has been made. Releva Relevant paragraphs of the judgement ement are reproduced as under: “11. I status hesitat which govern correc Govern rules a service observ of the n In view of the above principles, f atus of a person in employment sitation in holding that the observ hich fell vacant prior to the am verned by old Rules and not by rrect position of law. We have alrea overnment employee involves a relat les and that there are no rights out rvices. Further, the Court in Ranga servation by locating such a right o the new Rules… onal les, flowing from the constitutional ent with the State, we have no no servations in Rangaiah that posts osts be amendment of Rules would be by new Rules do not reflect the the lready explained that the status of a of a y by relationship governed exclusively by outside these rules that govern the the angaiah's case has not justified its d its asis ght on any principle or on the basis xx xx x xx xx 36. A would except finding propos . A review of the fifteen cases tha uld demonstrate that this Court ha ceptions to the broad proposition dings in these judgments, that h oposition formulated by Rangaiah ar aiah that have distinguished Rangaiah t has been consistently carving out out tion formulated in Rangaiah. The The the at have a direct bearing on the ah are as under: 1. There is no rule of univer must be necessarily filled on the on the date when they aros understood in the context of the cies iversal application that vacancies n the basis of the law which existed isted t be arose, Rangaiah's case must be f the rules involved therein. 2. It is now a settled proposition right to be considered in the li implies the "rule in force" as o place. The right to be considere date of consideration of the elig as a sition of law that a candidate has a hich he light of the existed rules, which " as on the date consideration takes akes the idered for promotion occurs on the eligible candidates. 3. The Government is entitle decision not to fill up the v amendment of the rules. The e vested right to being considered with the repealed rules in view the Government. There is no ob make appointments as per th olicy titled to take a conscious policy e vacancies arising prior to the the he employee does not acquire any any ance dered for promotion in accordance view of the policy decision taken by n by o obligation for the Government to nt to t of er the old rules in the event of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP restructuring of the cadre is in the unit. The only requiremen the Government must be fair justified on the touchstone of A is intended for efficient working of g of ment is that the policy decisions of s of t be fair and reasonable and must be of Article 14. 4. The principle in Rangaiah because posts were created, a appointing authority to fill up th rely aiah need not be applied merely the d, as it is not obligatory for the up the posts immediately. 5. When there is no statutory consider appointments to vaca amendment, the State cannot cases.” utory duty cast upon the State to e to vacancies that existed prior to the the the nnot be directed to consider the plied) (Emphasis supplied) CONCLUSI USION 23. This Court is of the considered dents sidered opinion that the Respondents have duly com uly complied with the decision of this f 2018 f this Court in CWP No. 262 of 2018 by granting p nting promotions to similarly situated n the ituated co-petitioners therein, on the basis of vac of vacancies available under the o ective the old Rules in their respective Municipal Co ipal Corporations. Shri Dharampal, Sh , Shri pal, Shri Mam Chand (Rewari), Shri Rajiv Kumar umar (Karnal), Shri Jagdev (Naraing arnal), araingarh), Shri Raj Kumar (Karnal), Shri Promod romod Kumar (Ambala), Shri Chara Shri Charan Dass (Panchkula), and Shri Mam Raj (P aj (Panchkula) were promoted to the fficer to the post of Sub Fire Station Officer in their res ir respective Corporations vide o and ide orders dated 13.12.2019 and 16.05.2019, i 019, in compliance with this Court’ dents, Court’s directions. The Respondents, therefore, can re, cannot be held to have acted in a y not d in a discriminatory manner by not granting prom g promotion to the petitioners in the p icipal n the present case, as in the Municipal Corporation, ation, Gurugram, no vacancy was ava s and as available under the old Rules and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.20 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP-24888-2023(O&M) CWP all sanctione ctioned posts already stood filled. Th ioners ed. The promotion of the petitioners can only be c Rules. be considered under the 2016 Rules. 24. However, this Court is constrain nduct nstrained to observe that the conduct of the respon respondents is unbecoming of a public t case, public employer. In the present case, the Commi ommissioner, Municipal Corporat rporation, Gurugram, has taken taken inconsistent s istent stands at different stages, thereb in his thereby blowing hot and cold in his approach tow ch towards the petitioners. Despite th ancies pite the non-availability of vacancies in the Munic Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, pro d and m, promotion orders were issued and were subsequ ubsequently sought to be withdrawn o been awn on the ground that they had been issued inadv inadvertently. Such actions cause gr ment, use grave mental agony, harassment, and loss of re s of reputation to the employees conce nduct s concerned. Accordingly, the conduct of the employ employer is strongly deprecated. 25. In view of the foregoing disc ion is g discussion, the present petition is dismissed. 26. Pending miscellaneous applica stand pplications, if any, shall also stand ed of. disposed of. 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 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document