Passed Over Twice For Promotion, Punjab Judge Moves High Court
Punjab judge Moves High Court: Damandeep Kamal Heera challenges Full Court decisions of April 2025 and February 2026 that cited pending “Disciplinary/VDC proceedings”; her juniors were selected, she says no chargesheet has been issued.
North Desk Correspondent
Chandigarh, November 4
A serving Punjab civil judge has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against two decisions of its own administration that passed over her name for designation as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), while officers junior to her were selected.
The High Court has issued notice of motion to the first respondent, the High Court itself through its Registrar General, “only, at this stage.” The case is listed for next month.
The petitioner, Damandeep Kamal Heera, 42, is presently posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala. According to her petition, she joined the Punjab Judicial Service on 25.06.2012. The petition names eight judicial officers as respondents. All are described as officers who were designated Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division) over and above the petitioner. Notice has not been issued to them at this stage.
WHAT THE FULL COURT RECORDED
Punjab judge Moves High Court: The first decision under challenge is item 10 of the 10th meeting of the Full Court of 2025, held on April 21, 2025, for “Selection of 27 Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Officers of the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate for appointment as Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division) in the State of Punjab.”
The relevant extract placed in the petition records: “The officers namely Shri Bikramdeep Singh, Civil Judge(JD)/JM, Baba Bakala, Shri Gagandeep Singh, Civil Judge(JD)/JM, Amritsar and Ms. Damandeep Kamal Heera, Civil Judge(JD)/JM, Faridkot be also passed over for their selection as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the State of Punjab on account of Disciplinary/VDC Proceedings pending against them. In case, they are exonerated, they will be entitled for selection as Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division) with effect from the date their juniors are selected as Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division).”
One more officer, Anantdeep Singh, was passed over at the same meeting because his probation period had not been cleared. Twenty-seven officers were then approved for selection.
The second decision is in the minutes of the Recruitment and Promotion Committee (Civil Judges) meeting of February 3, 2026. It was convened for the “Selection of 03 Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Officers” as Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division). Nine officers, including the petitioner, were listed “in zone of consideration.”
The minutes state: “As regards the Officers at Sr. No.2 to 4 above i.e. Sh. Bikramdeep Singh, Sh. Gagandeep Singh and Ms. Damandeep Kamal Heera, the Disciplinary/VDC proceedings against the above three officers are still pending.”
The Committee “recommends that the Officers at Sr. No.1 to 4 above … be passed over for their selection as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the State of Punjab.” The minutes add that if Bikramdeep Singh, Gagandeep Singh and the petitioner “are exonerated, they will be considered for selection as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) with effect from the date their juniors are selected as such.”
On the next three officers in seniority, Ramesh Kumar, Tanishth Goyal and Harjot Singh Gill, the minutes record that they “fulfill the eligibility criteria and no Disciplinary/VDC Proceedings are pending against them,” and recommend that they “be designated as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in the State of Punjab.”
THE CRITERIA
Punjab judge Moves High Court: The petition says the criteria for designation were approved by the High Court’s Rule Committee by an order dated February 28, 2022. In her words, “an Officer is required to have earned at least two B Plus Good grading in the service record of five years.” The petition says the April 2025 proceedings also record that if officers with five years of service are not available, officers with lesser service can be considered.
The petition lists her Annual Confidential Report (ACR) gradings from 2013-14 to 2025-26. These are B (Average) for 2013-14; B Plus (Good) for 2014-15; A (Very Good) for 2015-16 and 2016-17; B Plus (Good) for 2017-18; B for 2018-19; B Plus (Good) from 2019-20 to 2023-24; B (Average) for 2024-25; and B Plus (Good) for 2025-26.
The petition states that “none of her ACRs records doubtful integrity.” It says that her ACR for 2024-25 refers to pending complaints in column 7, and that she disputes the grading. It also says she counts five B Plus (Good) gradings in the five years from 2019-20 to 2023-24, and four in the five years from 2020-21 to 2024-25. The petition adds that the applicable cut-off date “must first be determined” before the 2025-26 ACR can be relied upon.
Punjab judge Moves High Court: THE PETITIONER’S CASE
Punjab judge Moves High Court: The petition says that no chargesheet has been issued to her and that no other disciplinary proceedings are pending against her. It states that the pendency of a complaint or a preliminary fact-finding inquiry cannot by itself exclude an officer from consideration.
The petition states that the High Court’s instructions of May 29, 2026, forwarded to her through a letter of the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated August 5, 2026, prescribe a period of three months for preliminary fact-finding inquiries, subject to extensions. It says the inquiry against her has been “pending for more than one year” and that no extension has been sought.
The petition also says it does not claim a right to automatic appointment. According to it, the grievance is the denial of consideration against the prescribed criteria.
THE PAPER TRAIL BEFORE THE COURT
Punjab judge Moves High Court: According to the petition, a report dated February 7, 2025, by the then District and Sessions Judge, Faridkot, concerned the petitioner. She applied under the Right to Information Act on May 5, 2025, for the agenda and minutes of the Full Court meeting. Her application was declined on May 29, 2025. After her first appeal, the Appellate Authority directed that the information be supplied.
A memorandum dated September 16, 2025, enclosed the report and asked her to respond within two weeks. She submitted a representation against the B (Average) grading on September 22, 2025, and a detailed reply to the report on September 29, 2025. The petition states that no speaking order has been communicated on either.
She made representations on May 19, 2026 and August 17, 2026, seeking consideration from the date her first junior was selected in 2025 and at each later exercise. The petition says no decision has been communicated on them.
The petition seeks to quash the Full Court decisions of April 21, 2025 and February 3, 2026 “to the extent” they exclude her. It seeks a writ of mandamus directing the High Court to designate her as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) over and above respondents Nos. 2 to 9. It also seeks consideration of her claim against the relevant vacancies “without treating the mere pendency of a complaint or preliminary inquiry as an automatic bar,” and a direction to decide her representations and her 2024-25 ACR. She has also prayed for provisional appointment against an appropriate vacancy during the pendency of the petition, without disturbing the existing appointees.
The petition was settled by Senior Advocate Vikas Chatrath and filed through advocates Arihant Goyal and Saurav Saini.
ALSO: Rewari Advocates Case Transferred to Jhajjar by High Court After 9 Years
ALSO: Punjab DA Contempt Case: Punjab Argues 6% Interest Means No Contempt; HC Rejects Basis
Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E
