1 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243(3 cases) Date of decision: 08.07.2026 1. CWP-1213-2024 KANTA RANI AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents 2. CWP-5517-2024 ANKUR BHASKAR .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents 3. CWP-4538-2024 SHASHI BHUSHAN .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravinder Pankaj, & Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocates for the petitioners in CWP-1213- 2024. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 Mr. Deepak Kundu, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-5517- 2024. Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP- 4538-2024. Mr.R.S. Budhwar, Addl. AG Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, DAG Haryana-State. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. All the aforesaid three writ petitions involve identical questions of law and arise out of a common set of facts. With the consent of the parties, all the writ petitions are being taken up together for adjudication. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.1213 of 2024. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the provisional result dated 07.01.2024 (Annexure P-19) declared for the posts of PGT Sanskrit under category No.16 against advertisement No.4/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) vide which the earlier select list/merit list dated 01.01.2019 has been superseded/revised in violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by excluding names of petitioners from select list, even when the petitioners have already been selected for the above said posts vide result dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure P-13). Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to select and issue appointment letters to petitioners against posts of PGT Sanskrit PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 under category No.16 against advertisement (Annexure P-1). Further praying that during pendency of writ petition operation of impugned result dated 07.01.2024 (Annexure P-19) be stayed or in alternative to issue appointment letters to petitioners on said post provisionally and two posts of PGT Sanskrit be kept vacant till then. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that respondent No.2-Commission issued Advertisement No.04/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) inviting online applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in different subjects, including 626 posts of PGT Sanskrit, out of which 269 posts were earmarked for the General Category. It is submitted that the petitioners applied under the General Category and participated in the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. Learned Senior Counsel further refers to the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement and submits that for the post of PGT Sanskrit (Category No.16), the essential qualifications prescribed were M.A. (Sanskrit) with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from a recognized University, along with Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit or 10+2/B.A./M.A. with Hindi as one of the subjects. It is contended that the petitioners fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria. Learned Senior Counsel submits that petitioner No.1 possesses more than 50% marks in M.A. (Sanskrit), B.Ed. and M.Phil., thereby possessing qualifications higher than the minimum qualifications prescribed under the advertisement. It is further submitted that the advertisement itself provided PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 that teaching experience for the post of PGT in the relevant subject would be taken into consideration, and the petitioners also fulfil the said requirement. 3.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the recruitment in question is governed by the Haryana State School Education (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1998, which lay down the method of recruitment as well as the requisite qualifications for appointment to the posts in question. It is submitted that at Serial No. 7 of Appendix B appended to the said Rules, the qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) by direct recruitment were (i) M.A. (Sanskrit) with at least 50% marks from a recognized University; and (ii) knowledge of Hindi up to Matric standard. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the aforesaid Rules were superseded by the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012, notified on 11.04.2012, wherein "PGT" has been defined to mean a Post Graduate Teacher in the relevant subject appointed after the notification of the said Rules and includes a Lecturer appointed before the notification of the Rules. It is further submitted that the existing cadre of Lecturers governed by the 1998 Rules stood converted into the cadre of PGTs in the relevant subject and all future recruitment was to be made as PGTs in accordance with the 2012 Rules. 3.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Rule 9(5) of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group B) Service Rules, 2012 specifically provides that the existing cadre governed by the erstwhile Haryana State School Education (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1998 shall PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 stand converted into the cadre of Post Graduate Teachers in the relevant subject and all future recruitment shall be made to the post of PGT in accordance with the provisions of the 2012 Rules. It is further submitted that, after scrutinizing the applications, the respondent-Commission found the petitioners eligible and issued admit cards to them for appearing in the written examination. The petitioners accordingly appeared in the written examination and were thereafter called for interview. Upon completion of the selection process, the consolidated result was declared. Learned Senior Counsel submits that both the petitioners secured the minimum benchmark prescribed for selection and were accordingly recommended by the respondent-Commission for appointment vide recommendation dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure P-14). In the meantime, certain candidates possessing the qualification of Shastri approached this Court by filing a bunch of writ petitions, the lead case being CWP No.31702 of 2018, Rakesh Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 06.11.2019. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioners therein was that, on account of Public Notice dated 09.12.2018, they were not called for interview. The said writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure P-15), whereby the aforesaid Public Notice dated 09.12.2018 was quashed and directions were issued to treat the petitioners therein as eligible and to prepare a fresh result accordingly. 3.3 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the aforesaid judgment was challenged by the State of Haryana by filing LPA No.1928 of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 2019 and connected appeals. The Division Bench, while considering the matter, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Annexure P-15) vide judgment dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-16) and observed that 523 candidates had already been declared successful in the selection process. It is further submitted that some of the candidates approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.3263 of 2023, Tarsem Sharma and others versus State of Haryana and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide interim order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-17), directed that the State of Haryana could appoint candidates out of the common merit list of both sets of candidates, namely, (i) the candidates selected pursuant to Advertisement No.04/2015 dated 28.06.2015, and (ii) the candidates possessing the qualification of Shiksha Shastri. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondent-Commission thereafter filed an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking clarification of the interim order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-17) passed in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. Learned Senior Counsel refers to the order dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-18), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the said application, observed that the issue regarding the inter se merit amongst the three sets of candidates shall remain pending for final adjudication. However, by way of an interim arrangement, the respondents were directed to prepare the selection list by placing, in the first instance, the candidates who were found eligible as on 23.06.2017, followed by the candidates possessing the qualification of Shiksha Shastri, and thereafter the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 candidates possessing the qualification of Acharya. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that thereafter the respondent-Commission, on a misconstruction of the interim directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, undertook a de novo exercise of examining the eligibility of the already selected candidates, despite the fact that the result dated 01.01.2019 had neither been challenged nor set aside. 3.4 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that once respondent No.2-Commission recommended the names of the petitioners for appointment vide recommendation dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure P-14), the process of verification of experience certificates and other testimonials fell exclusively within the domain of the employer and not the recruiting agency. It is contended that the respondent- Commission travelled beyond its jurisdiction and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by undertaking a de novo determination of the eligibility of the already selected candidates and thereafter revising the result declared on 01.01.2019 (Annexure P-13) by publishing the impugned provisional result dated 07.01.2024 (Annexure P-19), purportedly in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the impugned provisional result dated 07.01.2024 (Annexure P-19) assigns no reason whatsoever for reopening the eligibility, qualifications and experience of the already selected candidates. Consequently, the vested rights and legitimate expectation accrued in favour of the petitioners upon their successful selection have been defeated without PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 affording them any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show-cause notice, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the petitioners immediately approached respondent No.2-Commission by submitting a representation dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-20). Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, wherein this Court, vide order dated 19.01.2024, directed the respondents to keep two posts of PGT (Sanskrit) under the General Category vacant. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that, in the written statement filed by respondent No.2-Commission, an attempt has been made to justify the impugned provisional result (Annexure P-19), despite the fact that the same was published without any mandate or direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3.5 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the stand sought to be taken by respondent No.2-Commission in its written statement cannot be sustained in law, as the impugned action cannot be supplemented or justified by assigning fresh reasons through the written statement. Reliance is placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405, wherein it has been held that the validity of an order has to be judged by the reasons contained therein and the same cannot be supplemented by way of an affidavit or otherwise. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rashmi PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 Metaliks Limited and another versus Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others, (2013) 10 SCC 95. 3.6 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that the role of the recruiting agency is confined to conducting the selection process and making recommendations to the employer. Thereafter, the verification of eligibility, experience certificates and other testimonials falls within the exclusive domain of the employer. It is contended that petitioner No.1 fulfils the prescribed eligibility criteria, as her qualification is required to be examined in accordance with the Haryana State School Education (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1998. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that petitioner No.2 admittedly possesses the qualifications of M.A. (Sanskrit), B.Ed. and M.Ed., with the requisite percentage of marks prescribed under the Advertisement and the applicable Service Rules and, therefore, the action of the respondent-Commission in declaring the petitioners ineligible is contrary to the record. 3.7 Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.4538 of 2024, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has been declared ineligible vide the impugned provisional result dated 07.01.2024 (Annexure P-19) on the ground that he was over 45 years of age as on the cut-off date for submission of online applications, i.e. 21.09.2015, and further on the ground that he possessed the qualification of Shiksha Shastri instead of B.Ed. It is submitted that both the grounds assigned by the respondents are wholly unsustainable in law. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 3.8 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner possesses the higher qualification of Master of Education (M.Ed.) awarded by Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and, therefore, once the respondents themselves have recognized the petitioner as possessing a higher qualification in the same stream of education, his candidature could not have been rejected merely on the ground that he possessed the qualification of Shiksha Shastri instead of B.Ed. It is further contended that during the earlier selection process, the petitioner had been treated as eligible and had participated in the selection process without any objection. Consequently, the respondents are estopped from taking a contrary stand after declaration of the final result dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure P-13). 3.9 Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra), to contend that the qualification of Shiksha Shastri has consistently been recognized as equivalent to B.Ed. for the purpose of recruitment in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of India as well as the Government of Haryana. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents have illegally ignored the settled legal position while declaring the petitioner ineligible. 3.10 Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to Clause 6 of Advertisement No.04/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) and submits that the petitioner had applied under the Economically Backward Person in General Category (EBPGC) category and was entitled PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 to age relaxation in terms of the Haryana Government instructions incorporated in the advertisement itself. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents have committed a patent illegality in treating the petitioner as overage while ignoring the benefit of age relaxation available to him under the applicable policy. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that the respondent-Commission was well within its jurisdiction to re-verify the eligibility and experience credentials of the selected candidates, particularly when the entire selection process was under judicial scrutiny before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the respondent-Commission acted bona fide and in good faith with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure that only eligible candidates are recommended for appointment. It is further submitted that there are no allegations of mala fides against the respondent- Commission. 4.1 Learned State Counsel further submits that, as regards petitioner No.1, the experience certificates relied upon by her could not be taken into consideration inasmuch as the experience claimed prior to acquisition of the essential educational qualification is liable to be excluded. It is contended that the terms and conditions contained in Advertisement No.04/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) specifically provide that the requisite teaching experience is to be reckoned only after the candidate acquires the essential qualification prescribed for the post. After excluding PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 the ineligible period, petitioner No.1 is stated to possess only 7 months and 23 days of valid teaching experience and, therefore, she does not fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria. 4.2 It is further submitted that the experience certificate produced by petitioner No.2 was not countersigned by the competent authority, as mandated under the terms and conditions of Advertisement No.04/2015 (Annexure P-1). It is contended that the experience of petitioner No.2 is also required to be reckoned only after completion of the essential qualification of B.Ed. and, therefore, the respondent-Commission rightly found the petitioner ineligible. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a settled proposition of law that the terms and conditions of an advertisement are sacrosanct and the eligibility of a candidate has to be examined strictly in accordance with the conditions stipulated therein. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 6. The controversy involved in the present bunch of writ petitions lies in a narrow compass. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether respondent No.2-Commission was justified in undertaking a de novo verification of the eligibility and experience credentials of the petitioners after declaration of the final result dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure P-13) and issuance of the recommendations dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure P-14). Admittedly, neither the final result dated 01.01.2019 (Annexure P-13) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 nor the recommendations dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure P-14) were ever challenged or set aside by any competent Court. A careful perusal of the interim orders dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-17) and 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-18) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also reveals that no direction was issued to respondent No.2-Commission to reopen or re-verify the eligibility, qualifications or experience of the candidates who had already been selected. Thus, respondent No.2-Commission, while undertaking a fresh scrutiny of the eligibility of the selected candidates and publishing the provisional result dated 07.01.2024 (Annexure P-19), appears to have travelled beyond the scope of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and beyond the jurisdiction vested in it. 6.1 Further, this Court in Prasoon Sharma Versus State of Haryana and another, CWP-4616-2023, decided on 15.01.2026 has already held that verification of educational qualifications, experience certificates and other testimonials is essentially an executive function to be undertaken by the appointing authority and not by the recruiting agency after completion of the selection process. The relevant thereof may reads as under:- "22. As such, mere selection is not equivalent to appointment. Appointment falls under the exclusive domain of the employer and cannot be usurped by the Commission by taking upon the role of a super-employer. The ultimate appointment of a candidate post-selection is dependent upon multiple factors such as the applicable service rules and government PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 instructions. Moreover, verification of documents and assessment of eligibility of the candidates often pose fact- intensive questions pertaining to equivalence, authenticity of certificates, suitability of the candidate etc., which can only be answered by the employer. Any intervention in this regard by a selecting body like the Commission, unless expressly empowered by a statute, would be ultra vires. The proceedings conducted by the Commission are only competition-related and any executive functions must only be discharged by the employer." "24. It is settled law that an authority must act within the confines of the purpose of its creation. Any action that breaches this threshold would be an overreach that invites judicial correction. In that vein, it is entirely the prerogative of the appointing authority, in this case-the Employer, to ensure that the petitioner, being a selected candidate, has requisite proof of credentials, antecedents and experience to be duly appointed." "26. In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the Commission is a constitutional authority with a limited mandate and its core function is to complete the selection process i.e., conduct examination, declare results and make recommendations. The Commission cannot act as an adjudicatory authority on disputed questions of eligibility or experience by engaging in scrutiny and verification of experience certificate of the petitioner. If such a practice is allowed to continue unchecked, it will enable less meritorious candidates to steal a march over those who are higher in merit and deserve a fair consideration. Therefore the question framed above is answered in the negative and it is PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 clarified that unless empowered by a statutory framework, a Public Service Commission cannot embark upon character verification, antecedent inquiry, confirmation of credentials or adjudication of document validity, while discharging its constitutional or statutory duty of selection and recommendation and that the same remains within exclusive authority of the appointing authority/employer." 7. However, at the same time, the objections raised by the respondents with regard to the validity of the experience certificates, computation of the qualifying experience, age relaxation and the essential qualifications require factual verification by the competent appointing authority in accordance with the applicable Service Rules, Government instructions and the terms and conditions of Advertisement No.04/2015 dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1). It is also well settled that a candidate possessing a higher qualification in the same stream cannot be declared ineligible merely because the prescribed qualification is a lower one. 8. In this regard, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 595, has conclusively held that possessing a higher qualification in a subject than prescribed in the relevant advertisement does not render a candidate ineligible for consideration. Speaking through Justice Sandeep Mehta, the following was held: “32. Reading the language of the statutory provision in a literal sense and applying the golden rule of interpretation, this is the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 only logical and permissible interpretation. Hence, we have no hesitation in concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a degree course in "Chemistry" subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he must possess a master's degree in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken college education in the subjects of food technology; dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology; agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having master's or a doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.” 9. The aforesaid principle also stands reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2010(3) SCT 703, speaking through Justice Permod Kohli, wherein it was held as follows: “25. Arguing on the same line Mr. Khosla has strenuously argued that the persons possessing any qualification other than C.P.Ed are not eligible. With a view to appreciate the applicability of the aforesaid judgment, it is deemed appropriate to examine the rule position as prescribed under 1955 rules for the post of P.T.I. From the rule noticed in earlier part of this judgment, it appears that educational qualification like matric or 10+2 is not prescribed therein. Though in the advertisement, Senior Secondary Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent basic qualification is an essential component for the post. Similarly, for professional qualifications, certificate in Physical PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 Education C.P.Ed of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent is prescribed. However, by virtue of the corrigendum dated 24.10.2006, even a candidate with one year duration course of C.P.Ed is made eligible for recruitment in question. Similarly, in the rule, no equivalent qualification of C.P.Ed is referred to, though in the advertisement C.P.Ed or its equivalent qualification is also recognised as professional qualification. It cannot be ignored that the qualification prescribed under the rule and the advertisement is always the minimum qualification. It is not for us to identify any course which can be termed as equivalent to C.P.Ed course. At the same time, the curriculum of B.P.Ed and other higher courses, if include almost all the components of curriculum of C.P.Ed should not be construed to be a totally different and distinct qualification. In the case of Multan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that D.P.Ed, B.P.Edc and M.P.Ed are higher qualifications in the same line. From the curriculum of courses like C.P.Ed, B.P.Ed, D.P.Ed, it is found that almost all components of C.P.Ed course of one year or two years are taught in D.P.Ed course in almost all the Universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana. In sum and substance, the controversy revolves around the curriculum of two types of courses, one prescribed in the advertisement i.e. C.P.Ed and higher courses acquired by the petitioners. On facts, we are of the considered opinion that the curriculum of B.P.Ed, B.P.E, D.P.Ed includes the curriculum prescribed for C.P.Ed in major universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana. Higher qualifications being in the same subject and line cannot be ignored and candidates possessing higher qualification cannot be denied consideration for selection. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 26. The distinction sought to be created to deny eligibility is arbitrary and illusory. It goes without saying that the higher qualification provides better knowledge, better sense and in sight and equip the person with better understanding of the issues and problems. It cannot be a "bane" but has to be a "boon". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, 2000(2) S.C.T. 10 : (2000) 2 SCC 606 had the occasion to consider whether the higher qualification than 8th standard prescribed for the post of Peon renders a candidate ineligible. Examining the issue, it is observed as under : "21.A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.” (emphasis added) 10. Accordingly, in order to balance the equities and to ensure a fair, transparent and merit-based selection process, all three writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Director General, School Education, Haryana, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 petitioners and thereafter examine their educational qualifications, experience certificates and all other eligibility conditions strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory Rules, the Government instructions and the terms and conditions of Advertisement No.04/2015 (Annexure P-1), while keeping in view the principles laid down in aforesaid judgments, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. In the event the petitioners are found eligible upon such verification, they shall be considered for appointment strictly in accordance with their inter se merit and the applicable selection criteria. Insofar as the petitioner in CWP No.4538 of 2024 is concerned, respondent No.3 shall also examine his claim for age relaxation under the EBPGC category as well as his claim regarding possession of higher qualification and the equivalence of Shiksha Shastri with B.Ed., in the light of the applicable statutory provisions and in view of judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Full Bench of this Court. 12. In case the petitioners are found entitled to appointment, they shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period they have not actually worked. However, they shall be entitled to consequential notional benefits, if otherwise admissible in law, strictly in accordance with their merit position. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 CWP Nos.1213, 5517 & 4538 of 2024 13. The interim order passed by this Court directing that two posts of PGT (Sanskrit) be kept vacant shall continue to operate till the aforesaid exercise is completed by respondent No.3. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 15. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.07.16 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document