The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the State cannot introduce reservation in promotions through executive action or policy decisions in the absence of a statutory rule amendment. In the case before the Court, the Department of Health in Haryana had purportedly extended reservation benefits to junior employees belonging to Scheduled Castes for promotion to certain posts, despite the relevant service rules (Group-C Service Rules, 1997 and Group-B Service Rules, 1982) containing no provision for reservation in promotion. The Court found the action ultra vires, emphasising that promotion is not merely a procedural elevation but represents institutional recognition of merit, experience and dedication.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil pointed out that while the Constitution enables the State to provide for reservations in appointments and promotions under Articles 16(4) and 16(4A), such power is contingent upon specific legislative or rule-making action. The bench noted that the framers of the Constitution intended a balance between social justice and administrative merit, and that courts as “guardians of constitutional morality” must ensure that uplifting of one section does not inadvertently alienate another. The Court observed that in this case there had been no amendment to the statutory service rules; no collection of quantifiable data evidencing backwardness or inadequate representation; and the promotions in question were made under the guise of judicial precedents rather than statutory mandate.
The petitioners, general category employees who had been denied promotion while their juniors from reserved categories were advanced, challenged the promotions on the ground that the applicable statutes and rules did not provide for reservation in promotion. Their case underscored that reservations cannot be grafted onto service rules by executive fiat and without satisfying constitutional prerequisites as laid down in leading Supreme Court decisions such as M. Nagaraj v. Union of India and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta. The Court agreed, holding that “judicial pronouncements are interpretative tools, not vehicles of amendment. They do not substitute legislative or statutory action.”
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the impugned promotion orders and directed grant of retrospective promotion to the petitioners, including seniority, pay fixation and arrears. The ruling reaffirms that the Constitution is a framework of justice, not a charter of privilege, and that the quest for affirmative action must nonetheless proceed through lawful and constitutionally prescribed channels.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.