CWP-19030 IN TH 204 Rajan Choud State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution for quashing (Annexure P of Manager issuance of a 1 030-2015 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date Choudhary VERSUS f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. KS Dadwal with Mr. Nar petitioner. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Anil Sharma with Ms. Devy respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocat Advocate for respondent No.4. REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India praying for issuance of ashing the letter dated 21.08.2015 ure P-9) whereby the claim of petitio nager (Human Resources) has been e of a writ in the nature of mandam NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-19030-2015 Date of Decision: January 16, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR r. Naresh Kumar, Advocates for the unjab. . Devyani Sharma, Advocates for dvocate with Ms. Seerat Saldi, o.4. een filed under Article 226/227 of the ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari .2015 passed by respondent No.3 petitioner for appointment to the post been rejected. Further praying for damus directing the respondents to 2026 itioner ondents or the of the rari No.3 e post g for nts to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 issue appoint Resources) k 2. petitioner ha Farid Univer Administratio University, Management MBA. Beside post of Assis for the pos 27.08.2014 ( was MBA (H university. T 74 marks and 3. offered appo was informed on the groun Resources/Ad provisional c in Human R 2 030-2015 ppointment letter to the petitioner fo s) keeping in view her merit. Learned counsel for the petition er has obtained a Bachelor of Den University of Health Sciences, Faridk istration (Hospital Management) degre sity, Chandigarh, with specializa ement. The petitioner is a gold me Besides this, she has also cleared the Assistant Professor (HR), held on 29. e post of Manager (HR) pursuant 014 (Annexure P-2), wherein the es BA (HR)/Administration with at least ity. Thereafter, the petitioner qualifie ks and stood first in the merit list, as is Despite being the most merito appointment. Upon enquiry from th formed that the petitioner was alleged ground that the essential qualificatio ces/Administration). The petitione onal certificate of MBA (Hospital M an Resource Management on 03.07 ner for the post of Manager (Human etitioner, inter alia, contends that the f Dental Surgery degree from Baba Faridkot, and a Master of Business ) degree in the year 2014 from Panjab cialization in Human Resources ld medalist of Panjab University in d the National Eligibility Test for the on 29.06.2014. The petitioner applied rsuant to the advertisement dated the essential qualification prescribed t least 50% marks from a recognized ualified for the said post by securing t, as is evident from Annexure P-3. meritorious candidate, she was not om the office of respondent No.2, it llegedly not eligible for the said post ification required was MBA (Human etitioner, however, obtained her ital Management) with specialization 03.07.2015 (Annexure P-4), which uman at the Baba siness anjab urces ity in or the pplied dated cribed nized curing s not o.2, it d post uman her zation which PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 clearly demo in the adverti both MBA (H and a compa petitioner had 4. the Deputy G order dated 2 petitioner’s c and 05.06.20 matters for G the purview Supplies. Lea not possess th by completel 5. judgment pas of India and by authority CWP-1302- Medical Edu Division Ben 3 030-2015 demonstrates that she fulfills the esse dvertisement. Learned counsel further BA (Hospital Management) and MBA comparative chart (Annexures P-7 & er had studied all core subjects of Hum It is submitted that despite subm puty General Manager (HR), Respond ated 21.08.2015 (Annexure P-9), who r’s candidature. Relying on the Sta .06.2017 (Annexures P-12 & P-13), for Group 'B' posts, such as Manage rview of the Principal Secretary, D es. Learned counsel further submits th sess the requisite essential qualificatio pletely ignoring the rightful claim of t Learned counsel for the petit nt passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and others, 2007 AIR (SC) 381 reg hority who is not competent, and judg -2019 titled as ‘Manoj Kumar Ve Education and Research’, decide n Bench has held that mere differen e essential qualification as prescribed further refers to the detailed syllabi of d MBA (HR) (Annexures P-5 & P-6), 7 & P-8), demonstrating that the of Human Resources Management te submitting all relevant documents, spondent No. 3, passed the impugned ), who was not competent to reject the he Standing Orders dated 13.11.2007 13), it is argued that appointment anager (HR), fall exclusively within tary, Department of Food & Civil mits that respondent No.4, who does ifications, has been illegally appointed im of the petitioner. petitioner placed reliance on the Court in Mathura Prasad Vs. Union regarding the passing of an order d judgments passed by this Court in r Versus Post Graduate Institute of decided on 16.03.2021, wherein the ifference in nomenclature cannot be cribed abi of 6), at the ents, ugned ct the .2007 tment within Civil does ointed n the nion order urt in te of in the ot be PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 termed to be matters, title Corporation 1989, titled a decided on 20 6. to the adverti qualification post of Mana in MBA (H advertisemen “S.No Nam 1. Dep Gen Man (Fin Acco 2. Dist Man 4 030-2015 to be a ground to deny equivalence; , titled as ‘Gurdeep Singh and othe tion Limited and others’, decided o itled as ‘Ram Singh Versus Food Co d on 20.11.2008. Per contra, learned counsel for dvertisement dated 27.08.2014 (Anne cation prescribed at page 31 of the pa Manager (Human Resources), candid A (HR/Administration). The essenti sement are reproduced as under: Name of Post Qualification and E Deputy General Manager (Finance & Accounts) 1. MBA/M.Com wi recognized universi Chartered Accoun Accountant 2. Minimum 4 year in Managerial Cap a Commercial Orga District Manager Post Graduate Deg from a recognized u lence; CWP-387-2014 and connected others Versus Punjab State Power ided on 27.05.2015; and CWP-7585 d Corporation of India and others’ sel for respondents No.2 and 3 refers (Annexure P-2), wherein the essential the paper book indicates that for the candidate is required to have a degree essential qualifications given in the nd Experience with at least 50% marks from a ersity OR countant / Costs and Works years post qualification experience Capacity in Finance & Accounts in Organization. Degree with minimum 50% marks zed university cted wer 585- ’, refers ential or the egree in the m a orks ence ts in arks PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 3. Dep Dist Man (Acc 4. Man (H.R 7. (Hospital Ma Further, the i does not (HR/Adminis (Annexure R syllabus and and 67 of the Management industry. 8. argument rais passed by the taken by the by the Deput 5 030-2015 Deputy District Manager (Accounts) MBA (Finance)/C minimum 50% mar and 2 years pos Managerial Capa organization Manager (H.R.) MBA (H.R./Admin marks from a recog On the other hand, the petition tal Management) in which one of the r, the institute from which the petitione not confer/provide Post Grad dministration) as confirmed by an ure R-4/4 in Respondent No. 4’s reply s and curriculum of the degree attach of the paper book and submits that ement) includes HR subjects tailored Learned counsel for respondent nt raised by the petitioner regarding t by the Deputy Manager is wholly mis y the Managing Director concerned Deputy Manager. He further submits ce)/C.A./ICWA/M.Com/MFC with marks from a recognized university post qualification experience in Capacity in any commercial dministration) with atleast 50% ecognized university” (Emphasis added) etitioner possesses a degree of MBA of the subject is Human Resources. titioner has acquired her qualification Graduation degree in MBA y an RTI reply dated 04.09.2020 s reply). Learned counsel refers to the attached by the petitioner at page 66 s that the petitioner's MBA (Hospital ilored specifically for the healthcare ondents No.2 and 3 submits that the ding the impugned order having been lly misconceived, as the decision was erned and was merely communicated bmits that the judgments relied upon with rsity in rcial 50% MBA urces. cation MBA .2020 to the ge 66 spital thcare at the been n was icated upon PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 by the petitio applicability dismissal of t 9. respondent N No.4 on 10.0 on 24.08.201 petitioner app while conside submitted tha respondent experience an OBSERVAT 10. the record wi the issue invo that Courts m qua the same of the employ suitability of equivalence bench of th 6 030-2015 petitioner are clearly distinguishable o bility to the present case. Learned sal of the present petition. On the other hand, learned S dent No.4 submits that notice of mo n 10.09.2015, whereas respondent No 08.2015. Thus, the post in question er approaching this Court. This fact onsidering CM-15614-2015 vide orde ted that the petitioner has, till date, no dent No.4. Moreover, respondent nce and has since been promoted to th RVATION & ANALYSIS Having heard learned counsel fo ord with their able assistance, this Cou ue involved in the present case is no l urts must not interfere in recruitment same is clear and is within the legal f employer to lay down an eligibility cri lity of a candidate for the advertised lence also fall outside the domain of of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in hable on facts and, therefore, have no arned counsel accordingly prays for rned Senior Counsel appearing for f motion was issued to respondent ent No.4 had already been appointed uestion stood filled up prior to the s fact was also noticed by this Court e order dated 03.11.2017. It is further te, not challenged the appointment of ndent No.4 has gained sufficient o the post of AGM (HR). nsel for the parties and after perusing is Court is of the considered view that is no longer res integra. It is trite law tment process when the advertisement legal framework. It is the prerogative lity criterion as it alone can best judge rtised role. Furthermore, questions of ain of judicial review. A two-Judge urt in Maharastra Public Service ve no ys for g for ndent ointed to the Court urther ent of ficient rusing w that te law ement gative udge ons of Judge vice PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 Commission others (2019 the following “10. T employ desirab employ must p of wor much qualifi interpr will al the ad judgm or it is appoin accord review best fo contra 11. M.D. Firoz M speaking thro “56. T (supra a post conditi regard eligibil Questi review the cou 7 030-2015 sion through its Secretary vs. Sa 2019) 6 SCC 362, speaking through lowing observations in this regard: 0. The essential qualifications for a ployer to decide. The employer sirable qualifications, including an ployer who is best suited to decide ust possess according to the needs o work. The court cannot lay down uch less can it delve into the is alifications being at par with th terpretive re-writing of the advertise ll also fall outside the domain of jud e advertisement and the rules are dgment over the same. If there is an it is contrary to any rules or law th pointing authority after appropr cordance with law. In no case can th view, sit in the chair of the appoint st for the employer and interpret the ntrary to the plain language of the sa Recently, a two-Judge Bench of roz Mansuri & Ors v. The State of B g through Justice Satish Chandra Shar 6. The Supreme Court in Maharash upra) reiterated that the essential qu post are for the employer to decide. nditions of eligibility, much less c gard to desirable qualifications be igibility by an interpretive re- uestion of equivalence will also fall ew. If the language of the advertis e court cannot sit in judgment over Sandeep Shriram Warade and rough Justice Navin Sinha, has made or appointment to a post are for the yer may prescribe additional or g any grant of preference. It is the ecide the requirements a candidate eds of the employer and the nature own the conditions of eligibility, e issue with regard to desirable th the essential eligibility by an rtisement. Questions of equivalence f judicial review. If the language of are clear, the Court cannot sit in is an ambiguity in the advertisement aw the matter has to go back to the ropriate orders, to proceed in an the Court, in the garb of judicial ointing authority to decide what is t the conditions of the advertisement he same.” (emphasis added) nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in e of Bihar and Ors., 2026 INSC 68 ra Sharma observed as follows: rashtra Public Service Commission al qualifications for appointment to ide. The court cannot lay down the ss can it delve into the issue with s being at par with the essential -writing of the advertisement. fall outside the domain of judicial vertisement and the rules are clear, ver the same. and made r the l or the date ture ility, able an ence e of it in ent he in icial at is ent urt in 68, sion nt to the with ntial ent. icial lear, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 57. In Das, ( suitabi employ xx 59. Th employ qualifi recruit arbitra cannot qualifi employ employ policy public and in the ca matter review regard author advisa warran perver arbitra 12. Bhagaur and also reiterated unless the sa the following “16. I policy 8 030-2015 . In Chief Manager, Punjab Nation as, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Cour itability of qualifications lie within ployer. xx Therefore, it has been consistent ployer to determine and decide th alifications. The power of jud cruitment is limited to examin bitrariness or violation of fundam nnot rewrite service rules, alifications, or substitute their ow ployer. The scope of judicial ployment does not extend to ques licy in prescribing the minimum blic post. Qualifications are prescr d interests of an institution, an in e case may be. Similarly, equivalen atter which can be determined in ex view. Whether a particular qualific garded as equivalent is a matter f thority, to determine. The ass visability or utility of such prescr rrant intervention of the Courts un rverse. However, at the same ti bitrarily in prescribing qualification A two-Judge bench of the Hon’b r and others vs. State of Rajasthan iterated that Courts should not instinct the same is palpably arbitrary. Speaki lowing was held: 6. It is trite that the Courts would licy matters, unless the policy ational Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar ourt held that the relevancy and ithin the exclusive domain of the xx stently recognised that it is for the de the relevancy and suitability of judicial review in matters of amining legislative competence, ndamental rights, if any. Courts es, determine equivalence of ir own assessment for that of the ial review in matters of public questioning the State’s wisdom or um eligibility requirements for a escribed keeping in view the needs n industry or an establishment, as valence of a qualification is not a in exercise of the power of judicial alification should or should not be ter for the State, as the recruiting assessment of the expediency, escription of qualifications do not ts unless the same are shown to be e time, the employer cannot act tions for posts.” (Emphasis added) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Dev than and others (2022) 5 SCC 314 nstinctively interfere in policy matters Speaking through Justice B.R. Gavai, ould be slow in interfering in the olicy is found to be palpably mar and the the y of of nce, urts of the blic or or a eeds t, as ot a icial t be iting ncy, not o be act Dev 314 atters avai, the ably PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 discrim policy intellig intellig achiev 17. Th Kerala 13. Syal and oth decision date render a find qualifications reproduced a “12. Archit degree 9 030-2015 scriminatory and arbitrary. This cou licy decision when a State is in a po telligible differentia in applicatio telligible differentia has a nexus hieved. . This Court in the case of Krishna rala and others, (1997) 9 SCC 495 "36. To ascertain unreasonabl context of Article 14 of the Con enter upon any exercise for find decision of the State Governme better or more comprehensive p taken. It is equally immaterial if policy decision is unwise and is which such decision has been ta is demonstrably capricious or any reason whatsoever or discrimination or infringes an Constitution, the policy decisi should be borne in mind that ex testing a public policy in t unconstitutionality, courts sh uncharted ocean of public policy While dealing with a similar co others v. State of Punjab and othe n dated 26.08.2025) has held that it ca a finding with respect to equivalen cations with others. The relevant o uced as under: Admittedly, the petitioner rchitecture/Architecture Assistantsh gree/diploma in Civil Engineering. s court would not interfere with the a position to point out that there is ication of policy and that such xus with the object sought to be ishnan Kakkanth v. Government of 495 has observed thus: nableness and arbitrariness in the Constitution, it is not necessary to finding out the wisdom in the policy rnment. It is immaterial whether a ive policy decision could have been ial if it can be demonstrated that the d is likely to defeat the purpose for en taken. Unless the policy decision or arbitrary and not informed by or it suffers from the vice of s any statute or provisions of the ecision cannot be struck down. It at except for the limited purpose of in the context of illegality and should avoid "embarking on olicy".” (Emphasis added) ilar controversy, this Court in Nipun d others (CWP-14254-2022 (O&M) at it cannot act as a domain expert and ivalence of the prescribed academic ant observations of this Court are ioners do not possess a Diploma in antship, however, they do possess ing. It is the case of the petitioners the re is such o be t of the y to licy er a been t the for sion d by of the . It e of and on ded) ipun &M), rt and demic rt are a in sess ners PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 that th (Techn their r of the recruit the arg diplom archite Archite ought Buildin 13. exercis cannot equiva While a Buil in Civi 1) cate Assista would proscr Suprem 14.1 any ro of Bui this C Archite the qu (supra this re bench Sing R speaki 10 030-2015 at they are entitled to apply to th echnical) as they have studied arc eir respective courses and have acq the subject. It is further stated tha cruitment process in view of the Rul e arguments raised by learned coun ploma/degree in Civil Engineering, chitecture, is equivalent chitecture/Architecture Assistantshi ght to be allowed to be considered ilding Inspector (Technical). It is no longer res in ercising its powers under Article 22 nnot act as a domain expert and re uivalence of the prescribed academ hile the petitioners claim to be com Building Inspector (Technical) by Civil Engineering, Clause 4(1) of th categorically calls for a Diploma ssistantship. In order to comment on ould have to dawn the robes of a dom oscribed by a catena of judgmen preme Court. Further still, the adverti y room for ambiguity regarding the Building Inspector (Technical). It is Court to consider the nature chitecture in the Diploma/Degree e qualification prescribed under C upra) is not merely directory but is m is regard may be placed on the judg nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ng Rajput vs. Gulbarga University eaking through Justice C.K. Prasad, “21. ...As is evident applications were invited for fill subjects including the post advertisement requires post-gra subject'. The relevant subject wo to the post of Building Inspector d architecture as a subject during e acquired the requisite knowledge that they cannot be left out of the Rules of 2015. The entire thrust of counsel for the petitioners is that the ring, which includes the subject of t to the Diploma in ntship, and as such the petitioners ered for recruitment to the post of s integra that this Court, while le 226 of the Constitution of India, nd render a finding with respect to ademic qualifications with others. competent to perform the duties of by virtue of their diploma/degree of the advertisement (Annexure P loma in Architecture/Architecture nt on their alike nature, this Court a domain expert, which is expressly gments rendered by the Hon’ble vertisement (supra) does not leave the eligibility criterion for the post . It would be erroneous on part of ure and scope of the subject of ree course of Civil Engineering as r Clause 4.1 of the advertisement t is mandatory in nature. Reliance in judgment rendered by a two-Judge ourt in Ganpath Singh Gangaram ersity (2014) 3 SCC 676, wherein sad, the following was observed: ident from the advertisement, r filling up various posts in different ost of Lecturer in MCA. The graduate degree in the `relevant ct would, therefore, in the context of ctor ring edge f the st of t the t of in ners st of hile dia, ct to ers. s of gree e P- ture ourt essly ’ble eave post rt of t of g as ent e in dge m rein ent, rent The vant xt of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 11 030-2015 appointment to the post of Lectu in MCA. In our opinion, for Lecturer, Masters' degree in the subject. The advertisement r `relevant subject' and not `appr case, the Board of appointme graduate degree in Mathemati MCA but in sum and substan graduate degree in MCA for th one of the subjects taught in was beyond the power of the Bo 22. It shall not ma Mathematics is taught in the Ma course. The learned Sing gravely erred in upholding the University that `relevant subjec subjects as are offered in the M taught in a post-graduate cou degree in Commerce would not Mathematics or for that matt situation in which Masters' d christened and such a degree m would be too much to say that a degree in any of the subjects ta holders of a Masters' degree Masters' degree in Computer eligible for appointment. The la clear and explicit and does n hence, it has to be given effect did not have a Masters' degree i opinion, he was not entitled to as Lecturer in MCA. We are candidate possessing Masters' d Board of appointment had chose person for appointment in that are, therefore, illegal and inval that the University acting o appointing Ganpat as Lecturer that the Division Bench of the H aside his appointment. In our ecturer, mean postgraduate degree for appointment to the post of the Mathematics is not the relevant nt requires Masters' degree in appropriate subject'. In the present intment has not stated that post matics is the relevant subject for bstance it is equivalent to a post for the reason that Mathematics is t in MCA. This, in our opinion, e Board of appointment. make any difference even if e Masters' of Computer Application Single Judge, in our opinion, the contention of Ganpat and the ubject' would mean `such of those he MCA course'. If Mathematics is course in Commerce, a Masters' not be relevant for appointment in matter in MCA. There may be a rs' degree in MCA is differently ee may be considered relevant but it at a candidate having postgraduate cts taught in MCA would make the ree in those subjects as holder of puter Application and, therefore, e language of the advertisement is es not admit any ambiguity and, ffect to. Since the appellant Ganpat ree in Computer Application, in our d to be considered for appointment are aghast to see that when a rs' degree in MCA is available, the hosen an unqualified and ineligible that subject. Its recommendations nvalid. Natural corollary thereof is g on such recommendation and rer cannot be allowed to do so and the High Court was right in setting our opinion, an unqualified person gree t of vant in sent ost- for ost- cs is ion, if tion ion, the hose cs is ters' nt in e a ntly ut it uate the r of fore, nt is and, npat our ent n a , the ible ions of is and and tting rson PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 14.2. Court others ambit pertain throug xx 15. nomen respec and co posses Furthe to disc the ex the na jurisdi India, Archit Civil regard 14. dated 27.08.2 unambiguous as the essent despite her (Hospital Ma can declare 12 030-2015 cannot be appointed, whoever are of the opinion that the Div was right in holding that G appointment of Lecturer in Mast Further, a two-Judge be urt in Devender Bhaskar and oth hers 2022 (1) SCT51, has opined tha bit of the prescribed qualifications, rtaining to equivalence of acad rough Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the fo xx However, considering th menclature, there must be some di spective syllabi. As such, only an e d correctly draw equivalence betwe ssess the requisite knowledge urthermore, the essential qualificati discharge duties of a Building Insp e exclusive domain of the employe e nature of the job. Clearly, it w risdiction of this Court under Arti dia, to declare equivale rchitecture/Architecture Assistants ivil Engineering, especially in ab gard.” Adverting to the facts of the p 7.08.2014 (Annexure P-2), which gov iguous and clear. It explicitly prescribe essential qualification for the post of her undeniable academic excellenc tal Management).” The core issue, th clare the petitioner’s degree, with ver may be the recommendee. We Division Bench of the High Court at Ganpat was not eligible for Masters' of Computer Application.” e bench of the Hon’ble Supreme others vs. State of Haryana and d that the Courts cannot expand the ions, nor can they decide on matters cademic qualifications. Speaking he following was observed: xx g that these courses have distinct e difference in the nature of their an expert in his/her field can truly between two degrees as they would ge to take the said decision. ications that will allow a candidate Inspector (Technical) would fall in loyer as they are well versed with it would be beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of ivalence of Diploma in antship with Diploma/Degree in n absence of any Rules in this (Emphasis added) the present case, the advertisement ch governs the recruitment process, is escribes “MBA (HR/Administration)” ost of Manager (HR). The petitioner, cellence, holds a degree in “MBA sue, therefore, is whether this Court with its specialization in Human We ourt for n.” eme and the tters king tinct their truly ould ion. date ll in with e of n of in in this ded) ement ess, is n)” tioner, MBA Court uman PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 Resources, (HR/Adminis 15. negative. It i qualifications commercial required. The is a sector-sp taught with a in its wisdom to a MBA in in the exercis assessment o Management question of Commission domain of ju the aforesaid domain of ex 13 030-2015 ces, to be equivalent to the dministration).” The answer, in light of the settle e. It is the exclusive prerogative of cations it deems necessary for a role. rcial entity, has determined that a M d. The petitioner's degree, as rightly p specific program (Hospital Manag with a focus on the healthcare industr isdom, has chosen not to recognize th BA in HR/Administration for the post exercise of its power of judicial review ent or rewrite the advertisement ement with specialization in HR)” as n of equivalence, as held in sion (supra) and M.D. Firoz Man of judicial review. This Court agrees resaid cases that such determinations of experts and the employer, not the w the expressly advertised “MBA e settled legal position, must be in the ve of the employer to determine the a role. The respondent-corporation, a at a MBA in HR/Administration is ghtly pointed out by the respondents, Management) where HR subjects are industry. The respondent-corporation, nize this sectoral MBA as equivalent e post of Manager (HR). This Court, review, cannot sit in appeal over this ment to include “MBA (Hospital )” as a permissible qualification. The in Maharashtra Public Service Mansuri (supra), falls outside the agrees with the principle reiterated in ations of equivalence fall within the ot the writ court. MBA in the ne the ion, a ion is dents, ts are ration, valent Court, er this spital n. The vice e the ted in in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19030 CONCLUSI 16. justifiable to Constitution dismissed. 17. disposed of. January 16 P.C 14 030-2015 LUSION In view of the discussion abov ble to exercise its inherent jurisdict tution of India in the present case. Acc Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. (HAR 16, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : n above, this Court does not find it risdiction under Article 226 of the e. Accordingly, the present petition is pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ind it of the tion is stand PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.23 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document