CWP-12253-2021 & Connected matters 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 (5 cases) 1. CWP-12253-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 Manpreet Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and ors. .... Respondents 2. CWP-13835-2021 Kuldeep Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and ors. .... Respondents 3. CWP-13246-2021 Butta Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents 4. CWP-13847-2021 Deepak Singla and others ...Petitioners Versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and ors. .... Respondents 5. CWP-9774-2025 (O&M) Jagtar Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.31 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12253-2021 & Connected matters 2 ***** Present: Mr. H. C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-12253-2021. Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-13246-2026. Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-9774-2025 through V.C. Ms. Amrita, Advocate, for Mr. B. S. Dhatt, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP-13835-2021 & CWP-13847-2021. Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh, Advocate, with Ms. Muskan Gill, Advocate, for respondent (PSPCL) in CWP Nos.12253, 13246, 13835 & 13847-2021. Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. in CWP-13835-2021 & CWP-13847-2021. Mr. Harneet Oberoi, Advocate, with Ms. Anmolpreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondent-Union of India in all cases. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present bunch of writ petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-12253-2021. 2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the Regulation 9 of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Technical Services Class-III Regulations, 1996 (Annexure P-9) (herinafter referred to as “1996 Regulation”) by which even if the candidates have a degree or diploma in Electrical Engineering, they will only be considered eligible for the post of ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.31 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12253-2021 & Connected matters 3 Assistant Lineman (ALM) in case, they also have National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) in the Lineman Trade. 3. It may be noticed that on the basis of regulations i.e. 1996 Regulations, an advertisement/public notice was issued on 21.05.2021 advertising the various posts including the posts of Assistant Lineman (ALM). The qualification which as mentioned in the 1996 Regulation, were made eligibility conditions so as to compete for the said post of ALM. 4. The petitioners who though have a 3 years diploma in the Electrical Engineering but does not have the National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman Trade were held to be ineligible for the post of ALM by the respondent. 5. The challenge to the rule is on the ground that once, the petitioners have a higher qualification of degree/diploma in Electrical Engineering, they are not required to have National Apprenticeship Certificate in the Lineman and therefore, prescription of the same to become eligible even for the candidates who have higher qualification is incorrect. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any qualification which is higher than the one prescribed has to be treated eligible so as to allow them to compete rather than being barred from competing as, the respondents are under obligation to select the best possible candidate from the talent pool rather than limiting the zone of consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that keeping in view the fact that the post is of the Assistant Lineman, and the duty envisaged to be discharged, the requirements have been given under the ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.31 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12253-2021 & Connected matters 4 Rules under 1996 Regulations to claim eligibility and the said 1996 Regulations have been challenged only on the ground that the petitioners are having a high qualification than the one asked for/required under the 1996 Regulations. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the National Trade Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman trade is given after teaching the candidates the job profile of the post of Assistant Lineman, which is very necessary to perform the duties of the post rather than merely having higher academic qualifications than the one required. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the prescription of the qualification in order to recruit is within the domain of the employer and neither the Court nor the candidate can sit and decide what is the best possible qualifications of candidates for recruitment process. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance. 9. It goes without saying that the qualification which are to be prescribed for a particular post are within the domain of the employer. No candidate can dictate the terms to the employer to prescribe the particular qualification suited to him or her. 10. Further, not only the employer knows as to what is the job profile of the post but also can ensure as to how the best possible talent can be gathered for selection process. It is also a settled principle of law that Court cannot interfere in the prescription of a qualification unless and until, the same have been tailor made to suit a particular class with a mala fide intention, the qualification so prescribed is arbitrary and cannot be achieved by any candidate to become eligible or further such prescription of the qualification is by an authority not competent to prescribe the same. Once ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.31 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12253-2021 & Connected matters 5 the State covers all these hurdles, the jurisdiction of the Court does not exist even if, the Court is of the opinion that some of the qualifications would have been better suited than the one prescribed. 11. Further in the present case, the petitioners have a higher qualification of degree/diploma in electrical engineering. Though, they might be knowing the basics of the electrical engineering but the job profile of an Assistant Lineman is entirely different as, there are a lot of other things which are taught in respect of safety, the rectification of the electrical fault even climbing the electricity poles. All these things/aspects mentioned hereinabove are part of the National Apprenticeship Certificate in the Lineman trade, hence, the basic requirement of the job comes through such trade certificate which has been made essential by the State, therefore, the prescription of the same cannot be treated as arbitrary. 12. Further the incorporation of such qualification to be mandatory has been challenged by the petitioners only on the ground that they does not have such qualification. Merely because a candidate does not have a particular qualification does not mean the prescription of the same was beyond the jurisdiction of the employer or the prescription of the same is ultra vires. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that prescription of requirement of National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman trade in order to become eligible to the post of Assistant Lineman is contrary to any other law which is operational. In the absence of any such illegality pointed out, it cannot be held that prescription of such qualification is ultra vires. 13. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out to entertain the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.31 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12253-2021 & Connected matters 6 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed. 15. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 27, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.31 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document