IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 11036 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 27, 2009 Sanjiv Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The challenge to the notification dated 4.1.2008, substituting the earlier ‘Rules’ known as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Service Rules, 1974, is on the anvil that no reasons have been given for changing the quota for promotion to the post of Executive Officer-cum-Secretary. It is appropriate to notice that earlier the post of Executive Officer-cum-Secretary used to be filled up 100% by promotion, which criteria by the substituted Rules has been changed to 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment (P-5). In pursuance of the changed Rules, a requisition dated 10.4.2009 (P-9) has been sent to the Haryana State Selection Commission for appointment to the post of Executive Officer-cum- C.W.P. No. 11036 of 2009 Secretary. The argument that reasons have to be recorded for changing the Rules is unsustainable because no legislative activity is required to be preceded necessarily by any reason. The provisions if otherwise are found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution could be declared ultra vires. But we find nothing wrong in the aforesaid provision as there is no condition of service of an employee laying down that he would be entitled to 100% promotion and that such rules cannot be amended. An employee cannot claim right of promotion without anything more. It is well settled that employment under the government is matter of status and not a contract even though the acquisition of such a status may be preceded by a contract namely an offer appointment is accepted by the employer. The rights and obligations are not determined by the contract of the two parties but by statutory rules framed by the Government. The service rule can be unilaterally altered. In that regard reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 and the view expressed in UPSC v. Girish Jayanti Vaghela, (2006) 2 SCC 482. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) July 27, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2