IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 214 Dharam Pal State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Annexure P 2. fulfils the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal, however, his candidature came to be rejected on the ground that he did not have the teaching experience of 3. pendency of State of Punjab and others case, which came to be dismi dated 04.05.2010 the judgment dated 7.1.1998 Dr. Satish Kant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dharam Pal Versus f Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY None for the petitioners. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made is for quashing the letter date Annexure P-1. As per the averments made in the instant case, the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal, however, his candidature came to be rejected on the ground that he did not have the teaching experience of 16 years and 8 years after Ph.D. Reliance in the index of the petition was placed on pendency of CWP-6852-1997, titled as Dr. Satish Kant and others vs. Punjab and others, involving the issue as that of the present which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 04.05.2010, against which no SLP was filed the judgment dated 7.1.1998 passed in CWP Dr. Satish Kant (supra), read thus: “13. As regards first contention, in laying down different qualification for direct recruitment and promotion. Candidate to be appointed by promotion could be treated as a separate category. As regards the anomaly in reading the rule as laying down requirement of eight years experience before Ph.D degree IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20227-2001 (O & M) Date of decision: 07.07.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. ng the letter dated 30.10.2001, As per the averments made in the instant case, the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal, however, his candidature came to be rejected on the ground that he did not and 8 years after Ph.D. in the index of the petition was placed on the Dr. Satish Kant and others vs. involving the issue as that of the present ssed by the Division Bench, vide judgment , against which no SLP was filed, by placing reliance on in CWP-6828-1997, relevant paras of As regards first contention, there is no legal bar in laying down different qualification for direct recruitment and promotion. Candidate to be appointed by promotion could be treated as a separate category. As regards the anomaly in reading the rule as laying down ht years experience before Ph.D degree Dr. Satish Kant and others vs. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-20227-2001 -2- and eight years experience after the PhD degree, we are of the view that matter is covered by earlier DB judgment referred to above. It cannot be held that a Ph.D candidate with 16 years experience after Ph.D is excluded. Moreover, the petitioners do not claim to have 16 years experience after Ph.D. Interpretation in the earlier DB judgment does not hold such a candidate to be ineligible. It only says eight years experience after Ph.D is must. We make it clear that a person with 16 years experience with requisite educational qualification will be eligible if eight years or more experience is after Ph.D. It is not necessary that eight years experience should be prior to Ph.D. 14. In view of above, no interference is called for.” 4. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. 07.07.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.07.08 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.