CWP-27134-20 205 Lakhvinder S State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. the Constitut certiorari for by the Co representation rejected. 2. applied for th of the releva laid down the 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF P CHANDIGA nder Singh Versus f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Amrinder Pratap Singh, Adv for the petitioner. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advoca for the respondent No.5. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been f nstitution of India praying for issua for quashing of order dated 08.08 e Commissioner, Municipal Corp ntation of the petitioner for appointm Learned counsel for the petition for the post of Beldar with the respo relevant advertisement (Annexure P wn the eligibility criteria which includ 1 OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CWP-27134-2025 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 ....Petitioner ...Respondents HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate dvocate unjab. been filed under Articles 226/227 of issuance of a writ in the nature of 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed Corporation, Moga whereby the pointment to the post of Beldar was petitioner contends that the petitioner respondent-Corporation in pursuance re P-9). The said advertisement also included clearing middle school level AT .2026 of ure of assed the r was tioner uance t also l level PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27134-20 Punjabi lang examination level, as dis Education Bo successfully Fruit Science from the cer eligible for a claim vide im the petitioner petitioner prescribed by 3. the responden to lay down provided the of the electiv advertisemen the basis of th justly not co the judgment Shrivastava v of 2021 deci Kumar Pank 2025 i language examination. However, ation for Punjabi language both at mat as discernible from the certificates ion Board (Annexures P-2 and P-3, re sfully completed one year course co cience, Punjab Agricultural University he certificate dated 24.08.2015 (Ann e for appointment as Beldar, the respo vide impugned order dated 08.08.202 itioner failed to annex his 8th class cert er clearly possesses higher quali bed by the advertisement (Annexure P Per contra, learned counsel for pondent-Corporation in its capacity as down the eligibility criteria for recru ed the requisite certificate for 8th class elective subjects, which was specifica sement (Annexure P-9). Further, the m is of these certificates submitted by th not considered for appointment. Lear gments rendered by the Madhya Pra ava vs. High Court of Madhya Prad decided on 16.02.2022 and the Chh Pankaj and others vs. State Bank o 2 ever, the petitioner had cleared the matriculation and senior secondary icates issued by the Punjab School 3, respectively). Thereafter, he also rse conducted by the Department of iversity, Ludhiana, as also discernible (Annexure P-4). In spite of being e respondent-Corporation rejected his 08.2025 (Annexure P-17) stating that certificate with his application. The qualifications than the minimum xure P-9). sel for respondent No.5 submits that city as the employer, is best qualified r recruitment. The petitioner has not class certificate with Punjabi as one ecifically sought in pursuance of the the merit list was prepared only on by the candidates. Therefore, he was . Learned counsel places reliance on ya Pradesh High Court in Manpree Pradesh in Writ Petition No.25978 e Chhatisgarh High Court in Pankaj nk of India and others decided on the ndary chool e also ent of rnible being ed his g that The imum ts that alified as not as one of the ly on e was ce on reet 978 nkaj d on PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27134-20 16.12.2020. in fact qualif State Educati the minimum 4. record with (Annexure P the minimum reproduced b “A) 8) G.S.R. Chief Group Provid direct langua to be compe manda percen being irrespe exam. C) Edu 1) Und recruit of midd 2025 20. However, he could not controve qualified Punjabi language examina ducation Board for both 10th class and imum prescribed benchmark. Having heard learned counsel with their able assistance, it tran ure P-9) prescribes 8th class level qual inimum prescribed benchmark. The uced below: xxx xxx As per the notification .S.R.75/const/Art.309/Amd(7)2022 is ief Secretary, Government of Pun roup-D in the service rules, 1963 is a ovided that no person shall be appo rect appointment unless he has pass nguage equivalent to middle class be conduct by the respective re mpetitive examination. The test of andatory qualifying test and failure rcent marks in Punjabi language w ing considered in the final merit li espective of the scores or marks in am. xxx xxx Educational qualification of the can Under the Punjab Municipal emplo cruitment to the post of Beldar, min middle class is necessary. 3 ntrovert the fact that the petitioner has aminations conducted by the Punjab and 12th class, which is higher than unsel for the parties and perused the it transpires that the advertisement el qualification in Punjabi language as The relevant eligibility criteria is xxx tion dated 04.11.2020, No. 22 issued under the signature of the Punjab, the amendment made in is as under:- ppointed any post in any service by passed a qualifying test of Punjabi with at least fifty percent marks e recruit agencies in addition to st of Punjabi language shall be a ilure to secure a minimum of fifty ge will disqualify the candidate for rit list of candidates to be selected ks in other papers of the respective xxx e candidate:- ployee (4) Service Rules, 1986, for minimum educational qualification has unjab r than ed the ement as is No. f the e in e by jabi arks n to e a fifty for cted ctive , for tion PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27134-20 2) Tha electiv get min 5. examination 12th class, a Education Bo justification petitioner me for responden rejected for Furthermore, that the inten possess an undeniably, t 6. Shekhar Sin SCC Online qualification not render a c Sandeep Meh “32. R and ap and p conclu "Chem posses 2025 That in case, the candidate has not ective subject, he will have to pass t minimum 50% marks.” Admittedly, the petitioner has ation with 52% marks in the subject lass, as highlighted by the certificate ion Board (Annexures P-2 and P-3, r ation in the respondent-Corporation er merely for want of 8th class certific pondent No.5 could not controvert the d for possessing qualifications hi rmore, a perusal of the advertisement e intention is to ensure that those ap s an effective understanding of th ably, the petitioner does. A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ Singh and others vs. The State o nline SC 595 has conclusively cation in a subject than prescribed in t der a candidate ineligible for consider p Mehta, the following was held: 2. Reading the language of the statu d applying the golden rule of interp d permissible interpretation. Hen ncluding that if a candidate, having hemistry" subject, desires to apply ssess a master's degree in that subje 4 not passed 8th Class the Punjabi as ass Punjabi subject and he should r has passed the Punjabi language bject in 10th class and 74.6% marks in ificates issued by the Punjab School 3, respectively). Thus, there is no oration rejecting the claim of the certificate. Moreover, learned counsel ert the fact that candidature cannot be ns higher than those prescribed. ement (Annexure P-9) makes it clear ose appointed to the post of Beladar of the Punjabi language, which, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra te of Jharkhand and others, 2025 ively held that possessing higher ed in the relevant advertisement does nsideration. Speaking through Justice statutory provision in a literal sense terpretation, this is the only logical Hence, we have no hesitation in ving undertaken a degree course in pply for the post of FSO, he must subject. However, if a candidate has i as ould guage in chool is no f the unsel not be ribed. t clear eladar hich, ndra 025 higher does ustice ense ical n in e in st has PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27134-20 taken techno veterin candid the de degree exclud these s an in uncon 7. Punjab and Kohli, opined “25. A that th not el aforesa positio rule n educat therein Interm compo certific two ye corrige duratio questio is refe qualifi cannot the adv 2025 ken college education in the subje chnology; biotechnology; oil tech terinary science; biochemistry or ndidate would be qualified for the F e degrees, i.e., either graduation, gree in any of these subjects. There cluding the candidates having mas ese subjects from staking a claim to interpretation would be tot constitutional.” Further, a Full Bench of this Co and others 2010(3) SCT 703, spe opined as follows in this regard: 5. Arguing on the same line Mr. K at the persons possessing any quali t eligible. With a view to appre oresaid judgment, it is deemed ap sition as prescribed under 1955 rule le noticed in earlier part of th ucational qualification like matric erein. Though in the advertisement, termediate or its equivalent basic mponent for the post. Similarly, f rtificate in Physical Education C.P.E o years or its equivalent is prescri rrigendum dated 24.10.2006, even ration course of C.P.Ed is mad estion. Similarly, in the rule, no equ referred to, though in the advertis alification is also recognised as nnot be ignored that the qualificatio e advertisement is always the minim 5 subjects of food technology; dairy technology; agricultural science; y or microbiology, then such a the FSO post, if he holds any one of tion, post-graduation or doctorate here is no logic or rationale behind master's or a doctorate degree in im to the post of FSO because such totally unjust, arbitrary and his Court in Manjit Singh vs. State of speaking through Justice Permod r. Khosla has strenuously argued ualification other than C.P.Ed are ppreciate the applicability of the d appropriate to examine the rule rules for the post of P.T.I. From the f this judgment, it appears that atric or 10+2 is not prescribed ent, Senior Secondary Certificate or asic qualification is an essential ly, for professional qualifications, .P.Ed of a duration of not less than escribed. However, by virtue of the even a candidate with one year made eligible for recruitment in o equivalent qualification of C.P.Ed ertisement C.P.Ed or its equivalent as professional qualification. It ation prescribed under the rule and inimum qualification. It is not for us airy nce; h a e of rate hind e in such and te of ermod ued are the rule the that ibed e or ntial ons, than f the year t in .Ed lent . It and r us PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27134-20 to iden course course should qualifi Court higher like C. C.P.Ed in alm sum an two typ and hig consid include the Sta same s higher 26. Th arbitra qualifi and eq proble Hon'bl others (2000) qualifi render under 2025 identify any course which can be t urse. At the same time, the curricul urses, if include almost all the comp ould not be construed to be a alification. In the case of Multan (s urt has clearly observed that D.P gher qualifications in the same line. e C.P.Ed, B.P.Ed, D.P.Ed, it is fou P.Ed course of one year or two yea almost all the Universities in the St m and substance, the controversy re o types of courses, one prescribed i d higher courses acquired by the pet nsidered opinion that the curricul cludes the curriculum prescribed for e States of Punjab and Haryana. Hi me subject and line cannot be igno gher qualification cannot be denied c The distinction sought to be bitrary and illusory. It goes wit alification provides better knowled d equip the person with better un oblems. It cannot be a "bane" b on'ble Supreme Court in the case of hers v. District & Sessions Judge, 000) 2 SCC 606 had the occasion alification than 8th standard pre nders a candidate ineligible. Examin der : "21.A criterion which has the e right to be considered for the p having higher qualification than We have not been able to apprec 6 be termed as equivalent to C.P.Ed riculum of B.P.Ed and other higher omponents of curriculum of C.P.Ed e a totally different and distinct n (supra), a Division Bench of this D.P.Ed, B.P.Edc and M.P.Ed are ine. From the curriculum of courses found that almost all components of years are taught in D.P.Ed course e States of Punjab and Haryana. In y revolves around the curriculum of ed in the advertisement i.e. C.P.Ed e petitioners. On facts, we are of the riculum of B.P.Ed, B.P.E, D.P.Ed d for C.P.Ed in major universities in . Higher qualifications being in the ignored and candidates possessing ied consideration for selection. be created to deny eligibility is without saying that the higher owledge, better sense and in sight r understanding of the issues and e" but has to be a "boon". The e of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and dge, Nagpur, 2000(2) S.C.T. 10 : ion to consider whether the higher prescribed for the post of Peon amining the issue, it is observed as the effect of denying a candidate his the post on the principle that he is an prescribed cannot be rational. preciate as to why those candidates .Ed gher .Ed tinct this are rses ts of urse a. In m of .Ed f the .Ed s in the sing y is gher ight and The and 10 : gher eon d as his e is nal. ates PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27134-20 8. and the imp quashed and case of the p date of receip petitioner be successful ca the pay only computed in 09.01.2026 PC 2025 who possessed qualifications e could also not be considered. W the case in hand and should no a rule of universal application. In view of the discussion above e impugned order dated 08.08.2025 d and set aside. The competent autho f the petitioner afresh in aforesaid te receipt of a certified copy of this ord er be granted the same deemed d sful candidates. However, it is made c only from the actual date of joining ted in accordance with the merit list. Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable. : 7 ns equivalent to SSC Examination d. We are saying this on the facts of d not be understood as laying down on.” (emphasis added) above, the present petition is allowed 8.2025 (Annexure P-17) is hereby authority is directed to consider the aid terms within 06 weeks from the is order. It is further directed that the med date of appointment as other ade clear that he shall be entitled to joining. Lastly, the seniority shall be list. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No tion ts of own dded) lowed ereby er the m the at the other tled to all be RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document