The Punjab and Haryana high court issued a notice to the UT administration, Chandigarh municipal corporation (MC) and other respondents on a petition filed by three firemen challenging the promotion of two junior colleagues as leading firemen in the Chandigarh MC fire and rescue services.The petitioners sought quashing of the promotion order and directions to the authorities to make promotions to the post of leading fireman strictly in accordance with the applicable service regulations. (HT File)The petition was filed by firemen Naveen Kumar, Nitin Sharma and Devender Siwach. The respondents include the UT Chandigarh through its chief secretary, MC through its commissioner, the fire and rescue services through the joint commissioner, and the promoted employees, Parveen Kumar and Sukhpreet Singh.The petitioners challenged the promotion order dated May 25 to the extent that Parveen Kumar and Sukhpreet Singh, who are allegedly junior to them, were recommended and promoted as leading firemen. They contended that the promotions violate instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in April 2022 and March 2024, which the UT administration’s Department of Personnel endorsed.According to the petitioners, the authorities failed to comply with the conditions prescribed for granting reservation in promotions before promoting reserved-category candidates. They alleged that the promotions are illegal, arbitrary and have been made by ignoring their seniority despite their eligibility for promotion on a seniority-cum-merit basis under the MC Chandigarh Service Regulations, 2011.The petitioners sought quashing of the promotion order and directions to the authorities to make promotions to the post of leading fireman strictly in accordance with the applicable service regulations.Hearing the matter, Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa noted that the petitioners challenged the promotion of junior firemen based on reservation. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the authorities had not collected data regarding inadequacy of representation in service; therefore, reservation in promotion could not have been granted.The high court issued notice to the respondents. Counsel appearing for the respondents sought time to file a written statement; the matter was adjourned and is expected to be taken up in the first week of June.