CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

233

Date of decision: 26.08.2025

1. CWP-14254-2022 (O&M)

Nipun Syal and others

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

....Respondents

2. CWP-15639-2022 (O&M)

Ankur Kumar Choudhari and others

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate

with Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in both the cases.

Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab

for respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP-14254-2022

and for the respondents in CWP-15639-2022.

Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate

with Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate

for respondent No.3 in CWP-14254-2022.

Mr. G.S. Thind, Advocate for respondent No.4

in CWP-14254-2022.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of

CWPNos.14254 and 15639 of 2022, as they arise out of a similar factual

matrix and involve adjudication of common questions of law. However,

for the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CWP-14254-2022.

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 2

2. The present writ petition is preferred under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the

petitioners for selection and appointment to the posts for Building

Inspector(Technical) with the Department of Local Government, in

view of their equal or higher academic qualifications as against the

condition put forth in advertisement No.202245 to 202246 dated

17.06.2022.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.2-Punjab Public

Service Commission(PPSC) issued advertisement No.202245 to 202246

dated 17.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) for a total of 157 posts for Building

Inspector (Technical) with respondent-Department. Clause 4 of the said

advertisement laid down essential qualifications for application to the

said post i.e.- (i) Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship or

higher, and (ii) Matric Level Punjabi.

4. Only online applications were allowed by the respondent-

PPSC. However, the petitioners were unable to fill the online

application as it was mandatory to check the Diploma in

Architecture/Architecture Assistantship qualification and there was no

provision for entering any higher qualifications. Claiming that they had

identical or high qualification in the field of Civil Engineering, the

petitioners moved a representation dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure P-5),

however, to no avail. Hence, the present petition.

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 3

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that

while the advertisement (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent-PPSC

listed diploma in Architecture as an essential qualification to be

considered for the post of Building Inspector(Technical), the petitioners

have diplomas and/or degrees in Civil Engineering (Annexure P-2 to P-

4) which makes them eligible to be considered for the said post as well.

Both of the said qualifications pertain to a similar field/trade or

specialisation. Learned counsel further refers to the judgment passed by

the Coordinate bench of this Court in CWP No.15308 of 2010, titled as

Navjiwan vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 20.05.2014

(Annexure P-8) and submits that in a similar controversy, this Court has

directed Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh to ascertain

whether the degrees and diplomas in Civil Engineering as equivalent to

three-year diploma in Architecture with respect to the post of Junior

Draftsman (Mechanical). Accordingly, a three-member expert

committee was constituted which presented a report (Annexure P-7)

stating that “three years diploma in Architectural Assistantship and

three years Diploma in Civil Engineering can be considered as higher

qualification of the similar field/trade or specialization as that of the

certificate in Civil/Mechanical Draftsman.” Moreover, the aforesaid

report also states that the entire syllabus of Diploma in Architecture

Assistantship is also being taught in Diploma in Civil Engineering. As

such, the act and conduct of the respondents in excluding the petitioners

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 4

from participating in the recruitment process is contrary to the

constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India.

6. Furthermore, this Court, while issuing notice of motion on

07.07.2022, had permitted the petitioners to participate in the selection

process being prima facie satisfied with the arguments raised by learned

counsel for the petitioners. Moreover, as discernible from the replies

filed by them, the respondents failed to controvert the specific stand

taken by the petitioners regarding equivalence of their educational

qualifications.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the post of Building

Inspector(Technical) was created by the Punjab Municipal Corporation

Service (Recruitment and Condition of Service) (Amendment) Rules,

2015 (in short ‘the Rules of 2015’), notified on 06.01.2015, for the first

time. Appendix ‘B’ of the Rules of 2015 provided that a candidate

seeking direct recruitment must have a Diploma in Architecture while

those who are promoted to this rank are required to possess a Diploma

in Architecture or Diploma in Civil Engineering along with an

experience of 03 years. Since the Rules of 2015, even after the

notification dated 26.10.2015, equates Diploma in Civil Engineering

with a Diploma in Architecture for the post of Building

Inspector(Technical), the same ought to be honoured with respect to

recruitment initiated by advertisement dated 17.06.2022(Annexure P-

1).The respondents cannot adopt a different yardsticks for the direct

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 5

recruitment by excluding the petitioners, despite the fact that they have

diplomas and degrees in Civil Engineering.

8.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and

others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others, 2025 SCC Online SC

595,wherein, 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 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.

XXX XXX XXX

35. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in the following

manner: -

i. The impugned judgments rendered by the Division Bench

and the Single Bench, holding that the appellants were not

qualified for the post of FSO, are quashed and set aside.

ii. The prayer made by the appellants to appear in the

interview under the Advertisement No. 18 of 2023 dated

15th June, 2023 issued by JPSC, cannot be acceded to as

they did not apply under this advertisement.

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 6

iii. In order to do complete justice, and in case vacancies

do not exist in the recruitment process 2016, then the

respondents shall create supernumerary posts to

accommodate the appellants who shall be allowed to

partake in the recruitment process from the stage they were

disqualified, i.e., from the interview stage. In case after

undergoing interviews, the appellants succeed and are

placed at par or higher in merit as compared to the last

successful candidate in the particular category, they shall

be offered appointment which shall be effective from the

date of publication of the first select list in the recruitment

process 2016. We further clarify that since the selected

candidates were never impleaded and heard in the

proceedings before the High Court or in this Court,

appropriate direction has to be given to ensure that their

seniority position is not disturbed at this belated stage. It

is, therefore, provided that the successful candidates from

amongst the appellants shall be placed below the last

candidate selected and appointed in the subject selection

process.

iv. It is further clarified that in case the appellants succeed

and are offered appointment, they shall not be entitled to

back wages. However, they shall be entitled to all service

benefits on a notional basis.”(emphasis added)

8.2. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by a Full

Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others,

2010(3) SCT 703, wherein speaking through Justice Permod Kohli, the

following was opined:

“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

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 7

Physical 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.

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 :-

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 8

"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."

9. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel

for respondent No.2-PPSC, submit that the petitioners cannot seek

parity or equivalence of diploma/degree of Civil Engineering with the

diploma in Architecture as the former has one subject referring to

Architecture while the latter is entirely dedicated to it. Further, the

Building Inspector (Technical) is a field post, which requires expertise

in Architecture. Learned State counsel has relies upon the judgment

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jomon K.K. vs Shajimon P.

And others, 2025 SCC Online SC 711, wherein speaking through

Justice Dipankar Datta, the following was held:

“26. Mr. Nair is also right in referring to us the decision

in M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra). Although in such

decision it was held that it amounts to a fraud on public to

appoint candidates with qualifications inferior to the

qualifications advertised, which is not precisely the case

here because the appellant has higher qualifications than

what was required, yet, the other principle of law flowing

from such decision is squarely applicable. It has neither

been shown that the Director's letter dated 9th October,

2012 was given wide publicity nor has it been shown by the

appellant that KPSC had issued any corrigendum vide

public notice whereby the zone of consideration was

enlarged permitting holders of a Syrang's licence to

participate in the process.We, thus, hold drawing

inspiration from the said decision that the aggrieved are

all those who had similar or even better qualifications

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 9

than the appellant but who had not applied for the post

because they were unaware of the fact that persons not

having a current Lascar's licence would also be eligible

to apply and compete in the process. Equality of

opportunity in matters of public employment being a sine

qua non for a fair and transparent selection process, such

equality is conspicuously absent in the present case.

XXX XXX XXX

36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the

employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of

selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for

a particular post or has qualifications which, being over

and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules

framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution,

does not match the qualification specifically required) is

justified has to be decided considering the rules governing

the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of

duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered

and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that, at

times, the employer's need to have the right people at the

right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be

conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-

qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an

approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of

qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an

approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and

not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be

put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or

norms. Lack of public employment opportunities in

sufficient numbers may force even a Master degree holder

to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon

his application being favourably considered, what happens

to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing

study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain

unemployed for ever, if all or majority of the posts of peon

are filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the

Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves

the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job

commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of

years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public

exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh

selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer,

obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only

by those having the basic qualification, and not by over

qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good?

Does not the State have the obligation to strive to ensure

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 10

that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These

are questions which no Court can afford to ignore. We end

by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to

be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it

presents for resolution and that there can be no universally

accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate

is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential

qualification required for the post.”

10.1. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relied upon

the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajid Khan vs. L.

Rahmatullah and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 376, wherein, speaking

through P.S. Narasimha, the following was observed:

“21. Though there a number of decisions on this very

principle, (10) we will conclude with a recent decision of

this Court in Union of India v. Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC

Online SC 1308. emphasizing the restraint a court must

exercise while determining equivalence between

qualifications. The relevant portion is as under:

[(10) Mohd Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC

76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC

55; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad,

(2019) 2 SCC 404.]

"14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to

determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to

scrutinise a particular certificate and say, on the basis of

its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies

the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for

appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer,

after applications are received from interested candidates

or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the

Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide

whether any such candidate intending to participate in the

selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily

prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he

ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e.,

to participate in the selection process. It is only when

evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court

which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the

balance in favour of one party that the court could decide

either way based on acceptance of such evidence."

(emphasis added)

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 11

10.2. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Shifana P.S. vs. The State of Kerala and others, 2024 SCC

Online SC 1884. Speaking through Justice Sandeep Mehta, the

following was held therein:

“13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the

post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008

was a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant

does not hold such a degree. It is the case of the appellant

that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) degree acquired by her is

required to be treated as equivalent to a degree in

B.Sc(Chemistry). However, the said argument does not

hold water and is misconceived.

XXX XXX XXX

15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of India

and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343, a three Judge

Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier

judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v.

Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another (2009) 1 SCC

610 held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it

cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the

academic body of the University relating to equivalence

should be by specific order or resolution, duly published.”

10.3. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan CV and others vs. Union of India and

others, 2023 SCC Online SC 343, wherein, speaking through Justice

Aravind Kumar, the following was concluded:

“5. In this background, the qualification as prescribed in

column No. 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would

indicate that candidate who is seeking promotion to the

post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has to possess

"Diploma in Civil Engineering" with 5 years regular

service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering

Force. Whereas appellants are possessing Diploma in

Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED), which fact is

not seriously disputed by them. Mr. Tapas Das, learned

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 12

counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly conceded

before this Court that an erroneous proposition was put

forth before the High Court, namely, it was contended that

Diploma is equivalent to a Degree and as such negating

said contention, the High Court though justified its

conclusion had erred in ignoring the consistent stand that

had been taken by the Appellants, namely, Diploma in DED

possessed by them is that of 2 years course and though

column 11 prescribes Diploma in Civil Engineering for

being promoted as Superintendent BR-Grade-I is to be

treated as equivalent and this aspect was required to be

considered by the High Court is an argument which looks

attractive at first blush. However, on a careful perusal of

the extant Rules as applicable for promotion to the post of

Superintendent BR Grade-II, said contention has to be

necessarily rejected for reasons more than one. Firstly,

before the High Court appellants attempted to justify their

claim contending "Diploma" is equivalent to a "Degree"

and as such being entitled for promotion which has been

negatived by the High Court and rightly so. Secondly,

appellants tried to justify their claim contending rule as

applicable for direct recruitment would be applicable for

recruitment by promotion, which has not been accepted by

the High Court. In so far as the contention regarding

qualification for promotion, the rule itself is explicit and

clear, namely, it prescribes for promotion to Superintendent

BR Grade-I only, those candidates possessing Diploma in

Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade

in General Reserve Engineering Force would be eligible.

No doubt, said rule is silent with regard to Diploma in

Civil Engineering being either 3 years or otherwise. It is

an undisputed fact that appellants possess `Diploma in

DED' and not `Diploma in Civil Engineering'. It is trite law

that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or

declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule

itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses

being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its

views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies.”

10.4. Lastly, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has relies upon

the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather

and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404.

Speaking through Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the following was held:

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 13

“22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation

which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the

subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti

KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such

a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference

that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the

acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The

prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of

recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to

prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It

is no part of the role or function of judicial review to

expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications.

Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter

which can be determined in exercise of the power of

judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should

or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the

state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The

decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule

under which the holding of a higher qualification could

presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The

absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial

difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the

matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified

in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and

in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not

meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the

decision of the Division Bench.

23. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the

State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several

features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes

requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the

functionality of a qualification and the content of the

course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a

qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to

assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of

administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of

administrative decision making. The state as a public

employer may well take into account social perspectives

that require the creation of job opportunities across the

societal structure. All these are essentially matters of

policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the

decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a

specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher

qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower

qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 14

was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti

KK turned.”

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires

that the issue involved in the present writ petition draws its genesis

from the advertisement No.202245 to 202246 dated 17.06.2022

(Annexure P-1) whereby applications were invited for recruitment to

the post of Building Inspector (Technical). The qualifications for the

said post, as mentioned in Clause 4 of the advertisement (supra), are

reproduced below:

“4. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS

4.1 Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship

from the State Board of Technical Education Punjab or

from any other recognized institution.

OR

Higher Qualification in the relevant field from recognized

institution

4.2 Should have passed Punjabi of Matric or its equivalent

Standard.

Provided further that where a ward of Defence Service

Personnel, who is a bonafide resident of Punjab State, is

appointed by direct appointment, he shall have to pass an

examination of Punjabi Language equivalent to

Matriculation Standard or he shall have to qualify a test

conducted by the Language Wing of the Department of

Education of Punjab Government within a period of two

years from the date of his appointment. Provided further

that where a War Hero, who has been discharged from

defence services or paramilitary forces on account of

disability suffered by him or his widow or dependent

member of his family, is appointed under the instructions

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 15

issued in this behalf by the Government, the person so

appointed will not be required to possess afore said

knowledge of Punjabi language:

IMPORTANT NOTE: The candidates MUST possess the

requisite qualification before or by 08/07/2022.”

12. Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess a Diploma in

Architecture/Architecture Assistantship, however, they do possess

degree/diploma in Civil Engineering. It is the case of the petitioners that

they are entitled to apply to the post of Building Inspector (Technical) as

they have studied architecture as a subject during their respective

courses and have acquired the requisite knowledge of the subject. It is

further stated that they cannot be left out of the recruitment process in

view of the Rules of 2015. The entire thrust of the arguments raised by

learned counsel for the petitioners is that the diploma/degree in Civil

Engineering, which includes the subject of architecture, is equivalent to

the Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship, and as such the

petitioners ought to be allowed to be considered for recruitment to the

post of Building Inspector(Technical).

13. It is no longer res integra that this Court, while exercising

its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as a

domain expert and render a finding with respect to equivalence of the

prescribed academic qualifications with others. While the petitioners

claim to be competent to perform the duties of a Building Inspector

(Technical) by virtue of their diploma/degree in Civil Engineering,

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 16

Clause 4(1) of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) categorically calls for

a Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship. In order to

comment on their alike nature, this Court would have to dawn the robes

of a domain expert, which is expressly proscribed by a catena of

judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

14.1 Further still, the advertisement (supra) does not leave any

room for ambiguity regarding the eligibility criterion for the post of

Building Inspector (Technical). It would be erroneous on part of this

Court to consider the nature and scope of the subject of Architecture in

the Diploma/Degree course of Civil Engineering as the qualification

prescribed under Clause 4.1 of the advertisement (supra) is not merely

directory but is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard may be

placed on the judgment rendered by a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ganpath Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput vs.

Gulbarga University (2014) 3 SCC 676, wherein speaking through

Justice C.K. Prasad, the following was observed:

“21. ...As is evident from the advertisement,

applications were invited for filling up various posts in

different subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA.

The advertisement requires post-graduate degree in the

`relevant subject'. The relevant subject would, therefore, in

the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean

postgraduate degree in MCA. In our opinion,

for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters' degree in

the Mathematics is not the relevant subject. The

advertisement requires Masters' degree in `relevant

subject' and not `appropriate subject'. In the present case,

the Board of appointment has not stated that post-

graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant subject

for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a

post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 17

Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.

This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the Board

of appointment.

22. It shall not make any difference even if

Mathematics is taught in the Masters' of Computer

Application course. The learned Single Judge, in our

opinion, gravely erred in upholding the contention of

Ganpat and the University that `relevant subject' would

mean `such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA

course'. If Mathematics is taught in a post-graduate course

in Commerce, a Masters' degree in Commerce would not

be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that

matter in MCA. There may be a situation in which Masters'

degree in MCA is differently christened and such a degree

may be considered relevant but it would be too much to say

that a candidate having postgraduate degree in any of the

subjects taught in MCA would make the holders of a

Masters' degree in those subjects as holder of Masters'

degree in Computer Application and, therefore, eligible for

appointment. The language of the advertisement is clear

and explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and,

hence, it has to be given effect to. Since the appellant

Ganpat did not have a Masters' degree in Computer

Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to be

considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. We are

aghast to see that when a candidate possessing Masters'

degree in MCA is available, the Board of appointment had

chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for

appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are,

therefore, illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is

that the University acting on such recommendation and

appointing Ganpat as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so

and that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in

setting aside his appointment. In our opinion,

an unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may

be the recommendee. We are of the opinion that the

Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that

Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in

Masters' of Computer Application.”

14.2. Further, a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Devender Bhaskar and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2022

(1) SCT51, has opined that the Courts cannot expand the ambit of the

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 18

prescribed qualifications, nor can they decide on matters pertaining to

equivalence of academic qualifications. Speaking through Justice S.

Abdul Nazeer, the following was observed:

“21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors (1975) 3 SCC 76, it was held that the question

regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a

technical question based on proper assessment and

evaluation of the relevant academic standards and

practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further

held that where the decision of the Government is based on

the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court ,

uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical

insights necessary for the purpose of determining

equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the

Government unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant

considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and

perverse or manifestly wrong.

22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 288 this Court held that it is not

for the court to consider the relevance of qualification

prescribed for various posts.

23. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6

SCC 252 this Court held that the prescribed eligibility

qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment

to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by

the appropriate authority. It was held thus:

"13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is

clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for

admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion

in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate

authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a

particular educational qualification should or should not

be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed

by the authority."

24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar

Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610 this Court has reiterated

that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot

be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body

of the university relating to equivalence should be by a

specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing

specifically with whether a distance education course was

equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 19

university therein, the Court held that no material had been

produced before it to show that the distance education

course had been recognized as such.

25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz

Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held that the

State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications

as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration

the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient

discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications,

course content leading up to the acquisition of various

qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the

ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the

equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any

other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is

a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to

determine.” (emphasis added)

14.3. Additionally, as far as the reliance on the judgment rendered

by the Full Bench of this Court Manjit Singh(supra) is concerned, the

same is unfounded as it pertains to the issue of a candidate possessing

higher qualification than what was prescribed.

15. However, considering that these courses have distinct

nomenclature, there must be some difference in the nature of their

respective syllabi. As such, only an expert in his/her field can truly and

correctly draw equivalence between two degrees as they would possess

the requisite knowledge to take the said decision. Furthermore, the

essential qualifications that will allow a candidate to discharge duties of

a Building Inspector (Technical) would fall in the exclusive domain of

the employer as they are well versed with the nature of the job. Clearly,

it would be beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, to declare equivalence of Diploma in

CWP-14254-2022

CWP-15639-2022 20

Architecture/Architecture Assistantship with Diploma/Degree in Civil

Engineering, especially in absence of any Rules in this regard.

CONCLUSION

16. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find it

justifiable to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India in the present case. The question of equivalence

may only be answered by an expert, which could be the employer itself

or the relevant Commission. Accordingly, the present petitions are

dismissed.

17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

18. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other

connected case.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

26.08.2025

yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No