CWP-30287 IN TH 246 Shiv Nath Punjab State another CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti for quashing passed by the of his service Punjabi langu 1 287-2025 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o VERSUS State Cooperative Supply and Ma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advo Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocat and Ms. Preet, Advocates for the REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present civil writ petition h Constitution of India for issuance of a ashing of the impugned order dated by the respondents, whereby the peti services has been rejected on the gro i language examination at the Middle S NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-30287-2025 Date of Decision: December 09, 2025 .....Petitioner SUS d Marketing Federation Limited an ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate for the petitioner. dvocate with Ms. Navdita Rathore for the respondents. ition has been filed under Article 226 ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-13) e petitioner's claim for regularization he ground that he has not passed the iddle Standard level. , 2025 itioner ted and ondents le 226 tiorari 13) zation ed the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 2. petitioner wa continuous se Government P-7), entitles regularized 25.08.2023 (A this Court by direction to p passed, rejec educational Punjabi langu especially in counsel cont without insis on the judgm others Vs. S Hon’ble Sup Mineral Dev 3. 2023 Policy a the petitioner the 8th Stand 2 287-2025 Learned counsel for the petition ner was appointed as a Mali in April ous service for over 27 years without ment of Punjab's Regularization Polic ntitles employees who have comple ized under which the petitioner a 023 (Annexure P-8) and, upon not re urt by way of CWP No.21336 of 2025 on to pass a speaking order. In compl , rejecting his claim on the ground ional qualification of passing middle i language . He submits that the groun lly in light of the petitioner's long s l contends that four similarly situate t insistence on the language qualifica judgment of the Division Bench of thi s. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 6 le Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasa Development Corporation, 1991 (1) Per contra, learned counsel for t olicy and the Markfed Common Cadre itioner to possess the minimum qualif Standard with Punjabi. He argues th petitioner inter alia contends that the April, 1998 and has been rendering ithout any break. He submits that the n Policy dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure ompleted ten years of service to be oner applied for regularization on not receiving a response, approached f 2025, which was disposed of with a compliance, the impugned order was ground that he lacked the requisite middle standard with proficiency in ground of rejection is unsustainable, long service of 27 years. Further the tuated employees were regularized alification. He further places reliance of this Court in State of Punjab and C 65364 and the judgment of the rasad and others Vs. Delhi State 1 (1) SCC 361. el for the respondents submits that the Cadre Rules, 1990, explicitly require qualification, which includes passing ues that the petitioner does not meet at the dering at the exure to be n on ached with a r was uisite cy in nable, er the arized liance and of the tate at the equire assing t meet PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 this prerequis on judgemen Customs (Pr where a statu performed in employees c regularized u equality cann & Haryana Registrar Co 4. record with th 5. 1998 and ha conduct have of this cour 16.05.2023 f petitioner ap because he do 6. an employee possessing a 3 287-2025 erequisite criteria and, therefore, canno gement rendered in Tata Chemica (Preventive), Jannagar 215 AIR a statute or policy prescribes a mann ed in that manner alone. He further a ees cited by the petitioner are d ized under different, earlier policies y cannot be invoked. He places relianc ana High Court, 2025 NCPHHC r Cooperative Societies, 2004(4) SC I have heard learned counsel f with their able assistance. It transpires that the petitioner w has rendered unbroken service fo t have been satisfactory as nothing aga court. The State of Punjab issued 023 for employees who have compl ner applied under this policy, and e he does not have a Middle Standard p The core issue is whether, after ployee can be denied regularization sing a formal educational qualificatio , cannot claim regularization. Relying micals Ltd. v. Commissioner of AIR (SCW) 3571, he submits that manner for doing an act, it must be rther argues that the cases of the four are distinguishable, as they were olicies, and the doctrine of negative reliance on Rajesh Gupta Vs. Punjab HHC 36129, and A. Umarani V. ) SCT 728 SC. nsel for the parties and perused the oner was appointed as a Mali in April ice for over 27 years. His work and ing against it has been brought in light issued a Regularization Policy on completed ten years of service. The and his claim was rejected solely ndard pass certificate with Punjabi. , after 27 years of continuous service, zation solely on the ground of not fication that was never insisted upon elying r of s that ust be ur were gative njab i V. ed the April k and n light cy on . The solely rvice, f not upon PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 during his de have been reg 7. of regularisa having minim Hon'ble Supr 65 and the ju of Punjab an 8. categorically “19. U judgme employ deny th minim 9. Ram v. Sta observed that “6. Th term e nature constit employ the em when signifi fundam 14, 16 employ resour 4 287-2025 his decades of service, especially whe een regularized. This Court is of the opinion that ularisation on the ground of nonavai minimum qualification is squarely c e Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. S the judgments rendered by the Divisi b and others Vs. Sarwan Ram, 2025 The Division Bench of this Cou rically held that: 9. Under question No.2, while elabo dgments of the Hon'ble Apex Cou ployees had worked for a long per ny them benefit of regularization o inimum qualification.” A similar issue in this regard c State of Haryana, CWP-25042 ed that, . This Court has been constrained rm employees are engaged on ad ho ture of the services rendered b nstitutional employer, cannot be a ployees under the garb of lack of s e employees to meet educational qu hen they have been consistently se gnificant time period. Such an ap ndamental rights of the temporary 16 and 21 of the Constitution of ployees cannot be forced to bear sources when the State had no qua lly when similarly situated employees on that the issue with regard to denial onavailability of sanctioned posts or rely covered by the judgment of the v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC Division Bench of this Court in State 2025 NCPHHC 65364. is Court in Sarwan Ram (supra), has aborately discussing a plethora of Court, it was held that once the g period, it would be unjustified to on on the ground of not possessing (emphasis added) gard came before this court in Hari 42 of 2025, where in this court ned to observe a trend, where long d hoc basis, in spite of the perennial d by them. The State, being a be allowed to exploit its temporary of sanctioned posts or inability of al qualifications for regular posts, ly serving its instrumentality for a n approach would be violative of ary employees enshrined in Article n of India. Further still, temporary ear the brunt of lack of financial ualms about continuously taking loyees denial sts or of the C tate , has a of the d to sing dded) Hari court long nial g a rary ty of osts, or a e of ticle rary cial king PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 advant recurr 10. qualification respondents continuously benefited fr contradiction prerequisite technical shi arbitrariness Articles 14 an 11. and the princ face of the When a con override subs employees w To deny the subsequent w 12. accordingly petitioners ar 5 287-2025 vantage of the services rendered curring work of the concerned depa It is beyond the comprehension tion was an essential criteria to pe dents able to extract satisfactory ously for 27 long years. The res ed from his services throughout iction reveals that the qualification w uisite during his service and is now al shield to deny a rightful claim. riness and exploitation while also am s 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents' reliance on th e principle that a policy must be follo f the constitutional mandate against a constitutional right is violated, t e substantive justice. The respondent ees were regularized without this qua y the petitioner, who has served far lo uent welfare policy is palpably discrim In view of the above discu ingly allowed. The respondents are ners are regularised within six week ered with regard to integral and department.….” (emphasis added) nsion of this court that if the requisite to perform the task, how were the actory work from the petitioner he respondents have accepted and ghout these years. This glaring tion was never treated as a functional is now being deployed as a mere laim. Such an approach smacks of so amounting to a gross violation of on the doctrine of negative equality e followed strictly is misplaced in the gainst exploitation and arbitrariness. ted, technicalities of policy cannot ondents' own record shows that other is qualification under earlier policies. d far longer, the same benefit under a iscriminatory. discussion the present petition is ts are directed to ensure that the weeks from the date of receipt of and dded) uisite re the tioner and aring tional mere ks of ion of uality in the riness. annot other licies. nder a on is at the ipt of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 certified cop petitioners sh the date of entitled to co this Court in State of Hary 13. of accordingl December 09 P.C 6 287-2025 d copy of this order by the comp ners shall be deemed to be regularised te of receipt of certified copy of this to counting of past service and othe urt in Harbans Lal v. State of Punja Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan Pending miscellaneous applicati rdingly. ber 09, 2025 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : competent authorities. If not, the arised on the expiry of six weeks from f this order. The petitioners shall be d other benefits as per judgments of unjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and gwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. plication(s), if any, be also disposed (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No t, the s from all be nts of and posed RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document