CWP-10347 IN TH 1) Sunil Kumar Punjab State 2) Sanjay Kuma The Punjab S 3) Palwinder Sin The Punjab S 1 0347-2021 and connected cases N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA umar and others VERSUS State Transmission Corporation Limit Kumar and others VERSUS njab State Transmission Corporation L der Singh and others VERSUS njab State Transmission Corporation L NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-10347-2021(O&M) .....Petitioner SUS Limited ..Responde CWP-10810-2021(O&M) .....Petitioner SUS ation Limited ..Responde CWP-11038-2021(O&M) .....Petitioner SUS ation Limited ..Responde ioners pondent ioners pondent ioners pondent PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 Whether only Whether full CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. petitions as t question of l CWP-10347 2. Constitution quashing the P-1) issued b right of the p of Assistant L 2 0347-2021 and connected cases only the operative part of the judgm full judgment is pronounced? HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate Advocate for the petitioner No.5 petitioners No.6, 8 and 14 in CW petitioners No.6 and 14 in CWP Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr.Chirag S Pavandeep Kaur, Advocate for p 2021, for petitioner No.7 in CWP petitioner No.6 in CWP-10347 Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocat Advocate for respondent(s)-PST REET SINGH BRAR, J. This judgment shall dispose of s as they arise from a similar factu n of law. However, for the sake of b 0347-2021. The present petition has been tution of India seeking issuance of a w ng the advertisement no.CRA-11/202 sued by the respondent-PSTCL to the f the petitioners to apply and be consid istant Lineman (ALM) and Assistant Reserved on: 12.01.2026 Pronounced on:22.01.202 Uploaded on:22.01.2026 dgment is pronounced? No Yes HARPREET SINGH BRAR ocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta, r No.5 in CWP-10347-2021, for in CWP-11038-2021 and for CWP-10810-2021. irag Suri, Ms. Sital Sharma and Mr. e for petitioner No.8 in CWP-10810- n CWP-11038-2021 and for 0347-2021. dvocate with Ms. Haridhi Aggarwal, PSTCL. ose of all the above mentioned writ factual matrix and pose a common e of brevity, the facts are taken from been filed under Article 226 of the of a writ in the nature of certiorari for 1/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure to the extent of infringement upon the considered for recruitment to the post istant Sub-Station Attendant (ASSA), .2026 .2026 .2026 Mr. - wal, d writ mmon from of the for exure on the ost SSA), PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 respectively. mandamus petitioners h considered fo FACTUAL B 3. (Annexure P posts of Assi Attendant (A included a F from a recog posts online enter degree/ option for 02 CONTENTI 4. petitioners ca a higher qual minimum qu possessing a judgments re Rather and 404, Jyoti others (2010 3 0347-2021 and connected cases ively. A further prayer is made for is seeking directions to the resp ers holding a degree or diploma in ered for recruitment to the said posts. UAL BACKGROUND An advertisement bearing no.C ure P-1) was issued by respondent f Assistant Lineman (ALM) and 150 ant (ASSA) The essential eligibility q d a Full Time regular ITI certificat recognised institution. The petitioners nline but were unsuccessful since th egree/diploma in Engineering as a qu for 02-year ITI certificate. Hence, the ENTIONS Learned Senior counsel for the ers cannot be excluded from the zone qualification in the same field. It is s um qualification cannot have the ef sing a higher qualification. Reliance in nts rendered by the Hon’ble Supre and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahm K.K. and others vs. Kerala Pu 2010) 15 SCC 596 and a Full Bench for issuance of writ in the nature of e respondent-PSTCL to permit the a in engineering to apply and be osts. g no.CRA-11/2021 dated 18.05.2021 ndent-PSTCL for recruitment to 350 d 150 posts of Assistant Sub-Station ility qualifications prescribed therein rtificate in Electrical/Wireman Trade itioners attempted to apply to the said nce the portal did not allow them to s a qualification without selecting the e, the present writ petition. or the petitioner(s) submitted that the e zone of consideration for possessing . It is settled law that prescription of a the effect of excluding a candidate ance in this regard was placed on the preme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Ahmad and others (2019) 2 SCC Public Service Commission and Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh ure of it the nd be .2021 o 350 tation herein Trade e said em to ng the at the essing n of a didate on the mad SCC and ngh PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 vs. State of P also referred Prasad and in CWP-147 candidate as diploma in E two-year voc trade. It was Engineering) certificate), w Since the pet compared to consideration 14 and 16 of judgments re Singh and o No.10389 of Court in Gya 2022 decided 5. contended th lay down an candidate fo provides an u 4 0347-2021 and connected cases of Punjab and others 2010(3) SC ferred to the judgment rendered by a nd another vs. Uttari Haryana Bijl 14779-2007 decided on 19.08.2009 ate as ALM was challenged on the a in Electrical Engineering instead of ar vocational course or ITI certificat It was held therein that higher quali ering) presupposes the acquisition o ate), which was affirmed by the Div the petitioner hold a higher qualificati red to the prescribed ITI certification, t eration is illegal, arbitrary and violativ 16 of the Constitution of India. Reli nts rendered by the Hon’ble Suprem nd others vs. The State of Jharkha 9 of 2024 decided on 20.03.2025 Gyanender Rawal and others vs. S ecided on 08.07.2025. Per contra, learned Senior ded that it is settled law that it is the wn an eligibility criterion as it alone ate for the advertised role. The a es an unambiguous eligibility criterio ) SCT 703. Learned Senior counsel d by a Coordinate Bench in Jagdish Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others 8.2009 wherein appointment as of a on the ground that he possessed a ad of the prescribed qualification of a tification in the Electrician/Wireman r qualification (diploma in Electrical ition of the lower qualification (ITI e Division Bench in LPA-121-2010 lification in the same line of work as ation, their exclusion from the zone of iolative of their rights under Articles a. Reliance is also placed on a recent upreme Court in Chandra Shekhar rkhand and others in Civil Appeal 25 and a Coordinate Bench of this vs. State of Haryana in CWP-2793 enior counsel for the respondent is the prerogative of the employer to alone can best judge suitability of a he advertisement (Annexure P-1) riterion, which the petitioners do not unsel dish hers s of a sed a n of a reman ctrical (ITI 010. ork as one of rticles recent khar peal f this 793- ndent yer to y of a 1) o not PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 satisfy. More that the equiv would also be consideration eligibility cri by the Hon 699 and Dis Residential S (1990) 3 SC Liquidator vs qualification fulfilling the 6. others in CW qualification As such, sin (supra), the adherence to judgment in a Rule that presuppose cannot be ma the advertisem grant of equi 5 0347-2021 and connected cases . Moreover, nowhere in the said adver equivalent of ITI certification or a qu also be considered for appointment. Th eration is vested in the petitioners lity criteria for want of locus standi, in Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of P Distt.Collector and Chairman V tial School Society) and another 3 SCC 655. Moreover, the Hon’ tor vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 cation than the one prescribed need the latter. Further, this Court in Som Du CWP-2231-1983 decide on 25.11. cation may not make a candidate bette h, since the prerequisites are clearl , the respondent-PSTCL being the nce to the same. Learned Senior coun nt in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) that explicitly that acquisition of pose acquisition of a lower qualificat be made. Further still, the petitioners h ertisement (supra) on the ground of om f equivalence to higher qualifications advertisement has it been mentioned or a qualification higher than the same ent. Therefore, since no right to claim tioners, they cannot challenge the , in view of the judgment rendered of Punjab vs. Anita 2014(4) SCT n Vizianagaram (Social Welfare her vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi ’ble Supreme Court in Official has held that possessing a higher need not necessarily be treated as Dutt vs. State of Haryana and 25.11.1983 had opined that a higher better suited to the needs of the post. clearly stated in the advertisement g the employer can insist on strict r counsel also placed reliance on the pra) to submit that in the absence of on of a higher qualification would alification, an inference to this effect oners have not challenged the vires of omission of a clause pertaining to cations which begs the inference that tioned same claim e the dered SCT lfare Devi icial higher ted as and higher post. ement strict on the nce of would effect ires of ing to e that PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 they are sati granted to the Court in Pra and a Divisio others 2005 ( OBSERVAT 7. the record of advertisemen recruitment t criteria were “1.0 The pa Sr. No. POS COD 2 23 3 63 8. are required 6 0347-2021 and connected cases re satisfied with the contents of sam to them in terms of the judgment ren Prakash Chand Meena vs. State o ivision Bench of this Court in Dhani 005 (1) SCT 571. RVATION AND ANALYSIS Having heard learned counsel fo ord of the case, it transpires that the re sement dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure ment to the posts of ALM and AS were laid down in this regard: e pay scale and details of these post POST ODE Name of Post (No. of posts No. of Posts Qua 23 Assistant Lineman (A.L.M.) 350 No. Punjab matricu equival Full Ti Electri Trade recogn 63 Assistant Sub Station Attendant (ASSA) 150 No. Punjab matricu equival Full Ti Electri Trade recogn The advertisement (Annexure P uired to have a qualified a full tim of same. As such, no relief can be rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme te of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC 484 hani Ram vs. State of Haryana and nsel for the parties and after perusing respondent-PSPCL had issued an exure P-1) inviting applications for nd ASSA. The following eligibility posts are given below: Required Qualifications and Experience Pay Scale njabi pass of triculation or its uivalent level and ll Time regular ITI in ectrician/Wireman ade from a ognized Institution. xxx” njabi pass of triculation or its uivalent level and ll Time regular ITI in ectrician/Wireman ade from a ognized Institution. ure P-1) clearly states that candidates ull time ITI course in the trade of an be preme 484 and sing ed an ns for ibility ale idates de of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 Electrician/W petitioners is higher qualif field of Elect  Equiva 9. certification Electrical En syllabi must advertisemen be prima fac candidate wit A two-Judge and others v that the Cour can they de qualifications observed: “21. I (1975) of educ assessm practic where recomm relevan purpos decisio irrelev 7 0347-2021 and connected cases cian/Wireman from a recognised ins ers is limited their exclusion on th qualifications than that prescribed i.e f Electrical Engineering. quivalence of qualifications The nomenclature of the c ation in the trade of Electrician/Wi cal Engineering begs the inference t must be distinct. In the absence of an sement (supra) granting equivalence to a facie inferred that the higher qua ate with the knowledge a vocation-ori Judge bench of the Hon’ble Suprem ers vs. State of Haryana and other e Courts cannot expand the ambit of th ey decide on matters pertaining cations. Speaking through Justice S. A 1. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & O 975) 3 SCC 76, it was held that the q educational qualifications is a tech sessment and evaluation of the rel actical attainments of such qualific ere the decision of the Gov commendation of an expert body, levant data and unaided by techni rpose of determining equivalence, cision of the Government unless elevant considerations or actuated ed institution. The grievance of the on the ground of them possessing ed i.e. diploma/degree-holders in the the courses in question i.e. ITI ian/Wireman and diploma/degree in ence that their respective prescribed e of any Service Rule or clause in the ence to higher qualifications, it cannot er qualification necessarily equips a oriented course aims at providing. upreme Court in Devender Bhaskar others 2022 (1) SCT51, has opined it of the prescribed qualifications, nor ining to equivalence of academic e S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors the question regarding equivalence technical question based on proper e relevant academic standards and alifications. It was further held that Government is based on the dy, then the Court , uninformed of chnical insights necessary for the nce, would not lightly disturb the ess it is based on extraneous or ted mala fides or is irrational and of the essing in the . ITI ree in cribed he annot uips a iding. skar pined s, nor demic g was Ors ence oper and that the d of the the s or and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 perver 22. In Others the cou variou 23. In 252 thi admiss are ma thus: "13. F prescri recruit by the particu accepte author 24. In (2009) technic decisio should specifi to the the Co that th 25. In Ors. (2 entitled taking for e qualifi qualifi the pr prescri Equiva author (e 8 0347-2021 and connected cases rverse or manifestly wrong. . In J. Ranga Swamy v. Governm thers, (1990) 1 SCC 288 this Co court to consider the relevance o rious posts. . In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v this Court held that the prescrib mission to a course or for recruitm e matters to be considered by the ap From the ratio of the decisions n escribed eligibility qualification for cruitment to or promotion in servic the appropriate authority. It is not rticular educational qualification cepted as equivalent to the qua thority." . In Guru Nanak Dev University v. 009) 1 SCC 610 this Court has re chnical academic matter. It canno cision of the academic body of the un ould be by a specific order or reso ecifically with whether a distance e the degree of MA (English) of th Court held that no material had b at the distance education course had . In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors rs. (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held th titled to prescribe qualifications as king into consideration the nature o r efficient discharge of dutie alifications, course content leading alifications, etc. Judicial review ca e prescribed qualifications nor d escribed qualifications with any uivalence of qualification is a mat thority, to determine.” (emphasis added) ernment of Andhra Pradesh and Court held that it is not for ce of qualification prescribed for rs. v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC cribed eligibility qualification fo ruitment to or promotion in service e appropriate authority. It was held ons noted above, it is clear that the n for admission to a course or for ervice are matters to be considered not for courts to decide whether a ation should or should not be qualification prescribed by the ty v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., s reiterated that equivalence is a nnot be implied or assumed. Any he university relating to equivalence resolution, duly published. Dealing ce education course was equivalent f the appellant university therein, ad been produced before it to show had been recognized as such. Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & ld that the State, as an employer, is s as a condition of eligibility, after re of the job, the aptitude required uties, functionality of various ing up to the acquisition of various w can neither expand the ambit of or decide the equivalence of the any other given qualification. matter for the State, as recruiting and for for SCC for vice held t the for ered er a be the nr., is a Any ence ling lent rein, how d & r, is fter ired ious ious it of the tion. iting PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 Further Singh Ganga wherein spea “21. invited post of degree in the postgra post o relevan `releva the Bo in Ma substan reason This, appoin 22. taught Single conten would course Comm appoin a situa and su much t subject in tho Applic the ad ambigu Ganpa our op Lectur posses appoin 9 0347-2021 and connected cases Further, a two-Judge bench of the Hon angaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulbarga n speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad ...As is evident from the a vited for filling up various posts in st of Lecturer in MCA. The advert gree in the `relevant subject'. The re the context of appointment to stgraduate degree in MCA. In our st of Lecturer, Masters' degree in levant subject. The advertisement elevant subject' and not `appropriat e Board of appointment has not st Mathematics is the relevant subj bstance it is equivalent to a post-gr ason that Mathematics is one of is, in our opinion, was beyond pointment. It shall not make any dif ught in the Masters' of Computer A ngle Judge, in our opinion, gra ntention of Ganpat and the Uni uld mean `such of those subjects urse'. If Mathematics is taught mmerce, a Masters' degree in Comm pointment in Mathematics or for tha situation in which Masters' degree i d such a degree may be considere ch to say that a candidate having po bjects taught in MCA would make th those subjects as holder of M plication and, therefore, eligible for e advertisement is clear and expl biguity and, hence, it has to be give npat did not have a Masters' degr r opinion, he was not entitled to be cturer in MCA. We are aghast t ssessing Masters' degree in MCA pointment had chosen an unquali e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganpath arga University (2014) 3 SCC 676 Prasad, the following was observed: he advertisement, applications were s in different subjects including the vertisement requires post-graduate e relevant subject would, therefore, to the post of Lecturer, mean our opinion, for appointment to the e in the Mathematics is not the ent requires Masters' degree in priate subject'. In the present case, ot stated that post-graduate degree subject for MCA but in sum and graduate degree in MCA for the of the subjects taught in MCA. nd the power of the Board of y difference even if Mathematics is er Application course. The learned gravely erred in upholding the University that `relevant subject' jects as are offered in the MCA ht in a post-graduate course in ommerce would not be relevant for r that matter in MCA. There may be ree in MCA is differently christened dered relevant but it would be too g postgraduate degree in any of the ke the holders of a Masters' degree f Masters' degree in Computer e for appointment. The language of explicit and does not admit any e given effect to. Since the appellant degree in Computer Application, in o be considered for appointment as st to see that when a candidate MCA is available, the Board of ualified and ineligible person for path 676, ere the uate fore, ean the the e in ase, gree and the CA. of cs is rned the ject' CA e in t for y be ened too f the gree uter e of any llant in t as date of for PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 appoin illegal acting cannot Court an unq recomm High C appoin 10. best judge to for a particul and within th employer or Article 226 o certificate Engineering. rendered by Maharastra Shriram War Navin Sinha, “10. T employ desirab employ must p of wor much 10 0347-2021 and connected cases pointment in that subject. Its rec egal and invalid. Natural corollary ting on such recommendation and nnot be allowed to do so and that t urt was right in setting aside his unqualified person cannot be ap commendee. We are of the opinion gh Court was right in holding tha pointment of Lecturer in Masters' of Additionally, it is settled law th dge to assess suitability of a candidate articular post. As such, when the adve thin the legal framework, this Court c er or a domain expert and expand the 226 of the Constitution of India to ate in the trade of Electrician/Wir ering. Reliance in this regard can al by a two-Judge bench of the stra Public Service Commission thr Warade and others (2019) 6 SCC Sinha, has made the following observa 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 recommendations are, therefore, llary thereof is that the University and appointing Ganpat as Lecturer hat the Division Bench of the High e his appointment. In our opinion, appointed, whoever may be the nion that the Division Bench of the that Ganpat was not eligible for s' of Computer Application.” (emphasis added) law that the employer is always the didate and lay down eligibility criteria e advertisement qua the same is clear ourt cannot step into the shoes of the nd the scope of its jurisdiction under dia to declare equivalence of an ITI an/Wireman to diplomas/degrees in can also be placed on the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court in n through its Secretary vs. Sandeep SCC 362, speaking through Justice bservations in this regard: 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 down the conditions of eligibility, e issue with regard to desirable fore, rsity urer igh ion, the the for dded) ys the riteria clear of the under n ITI es in gment rt in deep ustice r the l or the date ture ility, able PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 qualifi interpr will al the ad judgm or it is appoin accord review best fo contra 11. Md. Firoz M 68, has reiter its opinion Chandra Shar “56. T (supra a post conditi regard eligibil Questi review the cou 57. In Das, ( suitabi employ xx 59. Th employ qualifi recruit arbitra 11 0347-2021 and connected cases 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 oz Mansuri and Ors vs. The State o reiterated this approach and opined t nion for that of the employer. S ra Sharma, the following was observed 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 view. If the language of the advertis e court cannot sit in judgment over . 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 rariness or violation of fundam 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 priate 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 tate of Bihar and Ors., 2026 INSC ined that the Courts cannot substitute r. Speaking through Justice Satish served: 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. 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 an ence e of it in ent the in icial at is ent urt in NSC stitute Satish sion t to the with ntial ent. icial lear, mar and the the y of of nce, urts PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 cannot qualifi employ employ policy public and in the ca matter review regard author advisa warran perver arbitra (empha 12. recruitment t were to be p Safety and S had amended Bachelor’ Food Techno Chemistry or the applicabl lower qualific Zahoor Ahm of a rule to t Gyanender 12 0347-2021 and connected cases 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 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 (emphasis added) In Chandra Shekhar Singh (s ment to the post of Food Safety Offic o be prescribed by the Central Gov and Standard Act, 2006. In the year ended the Food Safety and Standard s degree, Master’s degree and D echnology, Dairy Technology, Biotech stry or Degree in Medicine for the pos licable Service Rules categorically p ualification for a candidate who hold Ahmad Rather(supra), it was specif le to this effect, such an inference ca der Rawal (supra), the Governme 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.” h (supra), the matter pertained to Officer, the qualifications for which l Government in terms of the Food year 2022, the Central Government andard Rules by granting validity to and Doctorate degree in the field of iotechnology or Master’s degree in he post of FSO. In Jyoti K.K. (supra), ally provided for presupposition of a hold higher qualifications. In fact, in specifically noted that in the absence nce cannot be drawn. Further still, in ernment of Haryana had issued a of the blic or or a eeds t, as ot a icial t be iting ncy, not o be act ed to which Food nment ity to eld of ree in ra), n of a act, in sence till, in ued a PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 notification d higher quali qualification. said instruct UHBVNL. H by learned Se or the respon Singh (supra Prasad (supr  Violat 13. proscribes un distinction is differentia i.e and bear a rat such classific in Article 14 to the judgm others vs. T 2017(4) SCT following wa “14) rule of Respon betwee 13 0347-2021 and connected cases ation dated 16.06.1979 according elig qualification in the same line as cation. The same was also reiterated vi structions were also adopted by t NL. However, no such instruction or ned Senior counsel for the petitioner i respondent-PSTCL. Thus, the relianc upra), Jyoti K.K. (supra), Gyanend supra) is unfounded. iolation of Articles 14 and 16 of the It must be understood that Arti bes unreasonable classification. In ord tion is constitutionally valid, it mus ntia i.e. have a clear criterion for gro ar a rational nexus to the object it seek lassification would be in breach of the cle 14 of the Constitution. Reference judgment rendered by a three-Judge s. The Senior Vocational Staff M SCT 119, wherein speaking throu ing was opined: 4) It is a cardinal principle of law t le of law and uphold the values and spondents herein alleged that cre tween the persons in the same cadr g eligibility to candidates possessing ne as prescribed in the minimum ated vide letter dated 25.03.2016. The by the employer therein i.e. the ion or notification has been put forth ioner in relation to the State of Punjab eliance placed on Chandra Shekhar nender Rawal (supra) and Jagdish of the Constitution t Article 14 of the Constitution only In order to establish that an artificial t must be backed by an intelligible for grouping certain people together, it seeks to achieve. In absence thereof, of the promise of equality enshrined rence in this regard can also be made Judge Bench in State of Punjab and ff Masters Association and others through Justice R.K. Agrawal, the aw that government has to abide by and principles of the Constitution. t creating an artificial distinction cadre would amount to violation of essing imum The e. the t forth unjab khar dish only tificial ligible ether, ereof, hrined made and hers l, the e by tion. tion n of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 Article sustain having assurin also d equalit Article classif classif 14, its the cla disting out of reason statuto rationa intende added) 14. of opportuni becoming an that note, if a whimsical or nature and i Reliance in Constitution and another Bhagwati, the “82. T consid challen and ef 14 0347-2021 and connected cases ticle 14 i.e. equality before law and stained. The doctrine of equality is a ving many dimensions. Articles 14 suring equality before the law an so disallow discrimination which uality, in matters of employment. rticle 14 forbids class legislation bu assification. When any rule of assification is assailed on the groun , its validity can be sustained if it s e classification was to be based on a stinguishes persons or things group t of the group, and the differen asonable nexus to object sought t atutory provision in question. In ot tional nexus between the basis of tended to be achieved by the Statut added) Moreover, Article 16 of the Co ortunity for all citizens in matters o ing an expression of the right to equali te, if a State employer limits the zone ical or irrelevant considerations, such and in violation of both Articles 1 ce in this regard can be placed on tution Bench of this Court in E.P. Ro ther 1974 AIR SC 555 wherein, ati, the following was opined: 2. The last two grounds of challeng nsideration. Though we have for allenge as a distinct and separate g d effect merely an aspect of the sec and hence, such an act cannot be y is a dynamic and evolving concept 14-18 of the Constitution, besides and equal protection of the laws, ich lacks the object of achieving ent. It is well settled that though n but it does not forbid reasonable of statutory provision providing round that it is contrary to Article if it satisfies two tests, namely, that on an intelligible differentia which rouped together from the others left ferentia in question must have a ght to be achieved by the rule or n other words, there must be some is of classification and the object tatute or the Rule.” (emphasis the Constitution provides for equality tters of public employment, thereby equality guaranteed by Article 14. On e zone of consideration motivated by , such action be rendered arbitrary in cles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ed on the judgment rendered by a . Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu erein, speaking through Justice P.N. llenge may be taken up together for formulated the third ground of ate ground, it is really in substance e second ground based on violation t be cept ides aws, ving ugh able ding ticle that ich left ve a e or ome ject phasis uality ereby 4. On ted by ary in tution. by a adu P.N. r for of ance tion PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 of Arti that Ar in mat the Sta right b of opp up of Consti concep Article effect employ Article Now, w It is a it mus approa embra activis and di within view, arbitra republ monar unequ is ther relatin Article fairnes must b similar irrelev Where motive and re consid that is arbitra vice in Article 15 0347-2021 and connected cases Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embo at Article 14 as there shall be equali matters relating to employment or a e State. Though enacted as a distinc ht because of its great importance a opportunity in public employment w of the new classless egalitari nstitution, Article 16 is only an ins ncept of equality enshrined in rticle 14 is the genus while Article fect to the doctrine of equality in ployment. The basic principle w rticles 14 and 16 is equality and inh w, what is the content and reach of is a founding faith, to use the words must not be subjected to a narr proach. We cannot countenance a bracing scope and meaning, for to tivist magnitude. Equality is a dyna d dimensions and it cannot be "c thin traditional and doctrinaire limi ew, equality is antithetic to arbitr bitrariness are sworn enemies; one public while the other, to the whi onarch. Where an act is arbitrary equal both according to political lo therefore violative of Article 14, lating to public employment, it is rticles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrarin irness and equality of treatment. ust be based on valid relevant pri milarly situate and it must not be relevant considerations because tha here the operative reason for State otive inducing from the antechambe d relevant but is extraneous and o nsiderations, it would amount to m at is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Ma bitrariness are different lethal radia ce in fact the matter comprehends th ticles 14 and 16.” mbodies the fundamental guarantee uality of opportunity for all citizens or appointment to any office under stinct and independent fundamental nce as a principle ensuring equality ent which is so vital to the building itarian society envisaged in the n instance of the application of the in Article 14. In other words, ticle 16 is aspects. Article 16 gives y in all matters relating to public le which, therefore, informs both d inhibition against discrimination. h of this great equalising principle ? ords of Bose J., "a way of fife", and narrow pedantic or lexicographic ce any attempt to truncate its all or to do so would be to violate its dynamic concept with many aspects e "cribbed cabined and confined" limits. From a positivistic point of rbitrariness. In fact equality and one belongs to the rule of law in a whim and caprice of an absolute itrary it is implicit in it that it is al logic and constitutional law and 14, and if it affects any matter it is also violative of Article 16. rariness in State action an( ensure nt. They require that State action t principles applicable alike to all t be guided by any extraneous or e that would be denial of equality. State action, as distinguished from mber of the mind, is not legitimate nd outside the area of permissible mala fide exercise of power and Mala fide exercise of power and adiations emanating from the same ds the former. Both are inhibited by ntee zens nder ntal ality ding the f the rds, ives blic both tion. le ? and phic all- e its ects ned" t of and in a lute it is and atter 16. sure tion all s or lity. from te ible and and ame d by PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 Further Hasia vs. Kh Justice P.N. B “16. Airpor Report Article arbitra of clas Article judicia action equalit two c executi equalit there i or of Article State arbitra golden Consti 15. empowered b entitled to re furtherance provide an el who possess 16 0347-2021 and connected cases Further, a Constitution Bench of the H s. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) P.N. Bhagwati, made the following ob ...This was again reiterated b rport Authority's case (1979) 3 SCR port. It must therefore now be tak ticle 14 strikes at is arbitrariness bitrary, must necessarily involve neg classification which is evolved by t ticle 14 nor is it the objective and en dicial formula for determining whet tion in question is arbitrary and uality. If the classification is not rea o conditions referred to above, ecutive action would plainly be a uality under Article 14 would be ere is arbitrariness in State action w of the executive or of an "a ticle 14 immediately springs into a ate action. In fact, the concept bitrariness pervades the entire co lden thread which runs through t nstitution.” Adverting to the matter at ered by Article 309 of the Constitu to regulate recruitment and prescrib ance thereof, the respondent-PSTCL e an eligibility criterion that limits the ossess ITI certificate in Electrical/Wir (emphasis added) f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay 981) 1 SCC 722, speaking through ing observations: ed by this Court In International SCR 1014) at p. 1042 (supra) of the taken to be well settled that what iness because an action that is e negation of equality. The doctrine by the Courts is not paraphrase of nd end of that Article. It is merely a whether the legislative or executive nd therefore constituting denial of t reasonable and does not satisfy the ove, the impugned legislative or e arbitrary and the guarantee of be breached. Wherever therefore ion whether it be of the legislature "authority" under Article 12, nto action and strikes down such cept of reasonableness and non e constitutional scheme and is a gh the whole of the fabric of the (emphasis added) r at hand, as a State employer, nstitution, the respondent-PSTCL is rescribe conditions for the same. In PSTCL has specifically chosen to its the zone of consideration to those al/Wireman Trade from a recognised dded) Ajay rough onal f the hat t is trine e of ly a tive l of the or e of fore ture 12, such non- is a the dded) loyer, CL is e. In to those gnised PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 institution, th syllabus pr Electrician/W inculcating p On the other more intensi primarily pra PSTCL is ju who possess ALM and AS 16. opportunities Engineering. employer by diploma/degr virtue of thei Md. Firoz Chandra Shar “62. T Educa Educa manda hours refined 1Government of In Training Compete https://www.cstari https://www.cstari 17 0347-2021 and connected cases ion, thereby providing an intelligible s prescribed by for the ITI cian/Wireman1 indicates that the focus ting practical knowledge pertaining other hand, diploma/degree courses, a ntensive, might not guarantee to pro ily practical skill set as a tradesma is justified in limiting its recruitme ssess the skills that specifically aid in nd ASSA may only be employed. Notably, ITI certificate holder unities as compared to those who hold ering. Thus, the respondent-PSTCL er by taking a policy decision favouri a/degree holders are not explicitly their qualification. Reliance in this oz Mansuri (supra), wherein s ra Sharma, the following was held: 2. The course structure of Diploma ucation Regulations, 1991, which ucation Regulation, 2020. The D andates 500 hours of compulsory pr urs devoted to dispensing prescript fined the scope of training, limiting nt of India, Ministry Of Skill Development & Entre mpetency Based Curriculum for Electrician and W .cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Electrician_CTS2.0_N .cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Wireman_CTS2.0_N lligible differentia. A perusal of the ITI course in the trade of focus is on hands-on experience and ining to use of electrical equipment. rses, although traditionally longer and to provide the same immediate and desman. Therefore, the respondent ruitment process to those candidates aid in performance of the duties of an holders have a limited number of o hold a diploma/degree in the field of STCL cannot be faulted as a State favouring the former, especially when icitly excluded from application by in this regard can also be placed on speaking through Justice Satish ma in Pharmacy is governed by the hich has been replaced by the he Diploma in Pharmacy course ry practical training, including 250 criptions. The 2020 Regulation has iting it to hospital, dispensary, or Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of and Wireman, respectively. S2.0_NSQF-4.pdf 2.0_NSQF-3.pdf of the e of e and ment. er and e and ndent- idates of an er of ield of State when on by ed on Satish the the urse 250 has , or PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 clinic Regula of pra trainin pharm in diff entry o not r qualifi anothe avenue State i for app identif suitabl registe 63. Th Patna Compa of 2018 was he 18 0347-2021 and connected cases inic-based activities. While, und gulations, 2014, degree students are practical training and they have ining either in a hospital/ com armaceutical industry. The diploma different subjects. Merely because try of diplomates in the second yea t render the degree an in- alification in one stream does not other. Furthermore, the diploma enues as compared to degree hold ate in making possession of a Dipl r appointment cannot be said to be a entified a narrower catchment of itable for a particular purpose, gistered pharmacists. . This policy rationale finds reinfo tna High Court in the case of ompany Ltd. & Ors. v. Md. Asif Hu 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cas s held that, “….it was a matter of p only to Diploma holders available to Degree hold job opportunities on the Executive Engineers and available to Diploma hold to offer themselves for the the scheme of the conditi company. Thus, the decis Electrical Engineer to o amount to such prohibitio may allow us to invok Constitution of India in fa still have other job opport under the B. Pharma course s are required to undergo 150 hours have the option to undertake the community centre or within the lomates and graduates are trained use there is a provision for lateral d year of B. Pharm course, it does -line higher qualification. A not presuppose a qualification in lomates have limited employment holders. Thus, the decision of the Diploma an essential qualification be arbitrary. The State has merely t of candidates it considers most se, from within the larger pool einforcement in a decision by the of Bihar State Power (Holding) f Hussain & Ors. in LPA No. 1416 Case No. 11096 of 2018, wherein it of policy to offer the employment ders who have no avenues that are holders. The Degree holders have the post of Assistant Engineers, and other posts which are not holders and they are confined only r the post of Junior Engineers under nditions of service of the appellant decision to offer the post of Junior to only Diploma holders does not ibition against Degree holders that nvoke Article 14 and 16 of the in favour of the Degree holders who portunities….” (emphasis supplied) urse ours the the ined teral does . A n in ent the tion rely most pool the ing) 416 in it ent are have ers, not only nder llant nior not that the who lied) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10347 64. Ad postgra posses disprop or 16 o CONCLUSI 17. condition req recognised in down by adv issued by th petitioners. A dismissed. 18. disposed of. 22.01.2026 P.C 19 0347-2021 and connected cases Additionally, there is no absolu stgraduate degree holders. They r ssess the essential qualification o sproportionate harm is caused to th 16 of the Constitution.” LUSION In view of the discussion abov on requiring an ITI certificate in Ele ised institution for applying to the p by advertisement no.CRA-11/2021 da by the respondent-PSTCL to be inf . Accordingly, all the aboveme Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : bsolute exclusion of graduate or y remain eligible, provided they on of Diploma in Pharmacy. No to them so as to attract Articles 14 (emphasis added) above, this Court does not find the in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a the post of ALM or ASSA, as laid 21 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) be infringing upon the rights of the ovementioned present petitions are pplication(s), if any shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No e or they No s 14 dded) d the rom a s laid 1) of the s are stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document