15-05-2025
Punjab and Haryana HC okays direct recruitment to 50% posts of BDPOs in Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a key amendment to the Haryana Development and Panchayat Rules, 2016, dismissing two petitions that challenged the state's move to allow up to 50% of promotional quota posts for Block Development and Panchayat Officers (BDPOs) to be filled by direct recruitment. The verdict, delivered on May 14 by a bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta, backs the state government's decision to tackle a critical shortage of BDPOs in rural areas.
The two writ petitions – CWP Nos. 2975 and 3067 of 2024 – were filed by Harish Kumar and others, and Jagdish Ram and others, all serving as Social Education and Panchayat Officers (SEPOs). They contended that the 2019 amendment unfairly restricted their promotion prospects by diverting 50% of BDPO posts from promotion to direct recruitment if eligible SEPOs were unavailable. The petitioners argued that the move violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Justice Sharma, however, underscored the state's authority under Article 309 to frame and amend service rules. 'The power of the State Government to frame rules and also amend the same is absolute… Judicial review is only limited to the extent of examining the nexus and the purpose sought to be achieved,' he said. He clarified that the proviso enabling direct recruitment in place of promotion was not an override, but a necessary exception owing to the 'huge paucity of BDPOs.'
Initially, the 2016 Rules mandated that 50% of BDPO posts be filled by promotion from SEPOs and the other 50% through direct recruitment. The 2019 amendment reduced the qualifying experience for promotion from 10 to 7 years and added a proviso: if no eligible SEPOs were available, promotional posts could be filled directly, with a return to promotion-based filling for future vacancies.
The petitioners, appointed as SEPOs in 2021, argued that this would delay their promotion until 2028, by which time they would be eligible, since directly recruited BDPOs would occupy posts for years. They claimed this frustrated legitimate career progression.
Advocate General Parvindra Singh Chauhan, representing the state, defended the amendment as a step to ensure uninterrupted rural governance. An affidavit by Secretary Dusmanta Kumar Behera revealed that of 143 sanctioned BDPO posts, only 84 were occupied, with 25 still vacant despite recruitment efforts.
Rejecting the petitioners' contentions, the court observed, 'We are satisfied that sufficient reasons are available with the State Government for making the amendment… The contention regarding non-availability of posts for promotion in future is wholly misconceived.' The bench added that as BDPOs are promoted further, opportunities for SEPOs would naturally open up.
The court also vacated interim stay orders and allowed the state to go ahead with the recruitment process for 37 BDPO posts, advertised on November 17, 2023. Marked non-reportable, the judgment was delivered without costs and disposed of all pending applications.
