IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 856 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 10, 2011 State of Haryana …Appellant Versus J.S. Khatri and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the appellant. Mr. Joginder Singh Duhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal by the State of Haryana under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 28.5.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that reversion of Shri J.S. Khatri-respondent No. 1 from the post of Deputy Director to that of Assistant Director, vide order dated 24.8.1994 (P-2) was unsustainable in the eyes of law. The basis of the reversion was change in the seniority list, which has included the name of Shri Dashrath Singh Malik-respondent No. 2. 2. It has come on record that Shri Dashrath Singh Malik-respondent No. 2 was made eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director by virtue of amendment made in the Haryana State Archaeology (Group B) Service Rules, 1980, carried on 24.5.1990 (P-18). It is further clear that respondent No. 1 was promoted as Deputy Director from the post of Assistant Director on 29.12.1987 and the amendment brought on 24.5.1990 did not operate retrospectively. There is nothing in the notification dated 24.5.1990 to show L.P.A. No. 856 of 2010 (O&M) that the amendment was made incorporating the post of Registration Officer for promotion to the post of Deputy Director Archaeology. Therefore, by amendment made in 1990, the promotions made in 1987 were not adversely affected. 3. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623. According to the view taken by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, a vested right of promotion cannot be taken away by amending the Rules. Such a power can also not be exercised by the Legislature by passing an Act and the promotions already made have always be kept intact. In that regard reliance may also be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The writ petitioner- respondent No. 1 was promoted as Deputy Director on 29.12.1987 and the amendment made on 24.5.1990 would not take away the vested right earned by him because he stood promoted much prior to the date of amendment. Therefore, Shri Dashrath Singh Malik-respondent No. 2 could not rank senior to him or earn promotion over and above the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 10, 2011 JUDGE 2 L.P.A. No. 856 of 2010 (O&M) Pkapoor 3