CWP-10347

IN THE

1)

Sunil Kumar and

Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

2)

Sanjay Kumar and others

The Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

3)

Palwinder Singh and others

The Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

1

10347-2021 and connected cases

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Sunil Kumar and others

VERSUS

Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

Sanjay Kumar and others

VERSUS

The Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

Palwinder Singh and others

VERSUS

The Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-10347-2021(O&M)

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

..Respondent

CWP-10810-2021(O&M)

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

The Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

..Respondent

CWP-11038-2021(O&M)

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

The Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited

..Respondent

.....Petitioners

..Respondent

.....Petitioners

..Respondent

.....Petitioners

..Respondent

CWP-10347

Whether only the operative

Whether full judgment is pronounced?

CORAM:

Present :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR

1.

petitions as they

question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from

CWP-10347

2.

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a w

quashing the advertisement no.CRA

P-1) issued by the respondent

right of the petitioners to apply and be considered for recruitment to the p

of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and Assistant Sub

2

10347-2021 and connected cases

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No

Whether full judgment is pronounced?

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta,

Advocate for the petitioner No.5 in CWP

petitioners No.6, 8 and 14 in CWP

petitioners No.6 and 14 in CWP

Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr.Chirag Suri, Ms. Sital Sharma and Mr.

Pavandeep Kaur, Advocate for petitioner No.8 in CWP

2021, for petitioner No.7 in CWP

petitioner No.6 in CWP-10347

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Haridhi Aggarwal,

Advocate for respondent(s)-PSTCL.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J.

This judgment shall dispose of all the above

petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose a common

question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from

10347-2021.

The present petition has been filed under

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a w

quashing the advertisement no.CRA-11/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure

1) issued by the respondent-PSTCL to the extent of infringement upon the

right of the petitioners to apply and be considered for recruitment to the p

of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and Assistant Sub

Reserved on: 12.01.2026

Pronounced on:22.01.202

Uploaded on:22.01.2026

part of the judgment is pronounced? No

Yes

HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ayush Gupta,

Advocate for the petitioner No.5 in CWP-10347-2021, for

petitioners No.6, 8 and 14 in CWP-11038-2021 and for

petitioners No.6 and 14 in CWP-10810-2021.

Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr.Chirag Suri, Ms. Sital Sharma and Mr.

Pavandeep Kaur, Advocate for petitioner No.8 in CWP-10810-

2021, for petitioner No.7 in CWP-11038-2021 and for

10347-2021.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Haridhi Aggarwal,

PSTCL.

This judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned writ

arise from a similar factual matrix and pose a common

question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from

present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

11/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure

PSTCL to the extent of infringement upon the

right of the petitioners to apply and be considered for recruitment to the post

of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and Assistant Sub-Station Attendant (ASSA),

Reserved on: 12.01.2026

.2026

Uploaded on:22.01.2026

Mr. Aman Sharma, Mr.Chirag Suri, Ms. Sital Sharma and Mr.

-

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Haridhi Aggarwal,

mentioned writ

arise from a similar factual matrix and pose a common

question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from

226 of the

for

11/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure

PSTCL to the extent of infringement upon the

ost

Station Attendant (ASSA),

CWP-10347

respectively. A further prayer is made for issuance of writ in the nature of

mandamus

petitioners holding a degree or diplom

considered for

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3.

(Annexure P

posts of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and 150 posts of Assistant Sub

Attendant (ASSA) The essential eligibility qualifications prescribed therein

included a Full Time regular ITI

from a recognised institut

posts online but were unsuccessful since the portal did not allow them to

enter degree/diploma in Engineering as a qualification without selecting the

option for 02

CONTENTIONS

4.

petitioners cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration for possessing

a higher qualification in the same field. It is settled law that prescription of a

minimum qualification cannot have the effect of excluding a

possessing a higher qualification. Reliance in this regard was placed on the

judgments rendered by the Hon

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

404, Jyoti

others (2010) 15 SCC 596

3

10347-2021 and connected cases

respectively. A further prayer is made for issuance of writ in the nature of

seeking directions to the respondent

petitioners holding a degree or diploma in engineering to apply and be

considered for recruitment to the said posts.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

An advertisement bearing no.CRA

(Annexure P-1) was issued by respondent

posts of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and 150 posts of Assistant Sub

Attendant (ASSA) The essential eligibility qualifications prescribed therein

included a Full Time regular ITI certificate

from a recognised institution. The petitioners attempted to apply to the said

posts online but were unsuccessful since the portal did not allow them to

enter degree/diploma in Engineering as a qualification without selecting the

option for 02-year ITI certificate. Hence, the presen

CONTENTIONS

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the

petitioners cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration for possessing

qualification in the same field. It is settled law that prescription of a

minimum qualification cannot have the effect of excluding a

possessing a higher qualification. Reliance in this regard was placed on the

judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme C

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

K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and

others (2010) 15 SCC 596 and a Full Bench of this C

respectively. A further prayer is made for issuance of writ in the nature of

seeking directions to the respondent-PSTCL to permit the

a in engineering to apply and be

to the said posts.

advertisement bearing no.CRA-11/2021 dated 18.05.2021

1) was issued by respondent-PSTCL for recruitment to 350

posts of Assistant Lineman (ALM) and 150 posts of Assistant Sub-Station

Attendant (ASSA) The essential eligibility qualifications prescribed therein

certificate in Electrical/Wireman Trade

ion. The petitioners attempted to apply to the said

posts online but were unsuccessful since the portal did not allow them to

enter degree/diploma in Engineering as a qualification without selecting the

year ITI certificate. Hence, the present writ petition.

for the petitioner(s) submitted that the

petitioners cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration for possessing

qualification in the same field. It is settled law that prescription of a

minimum qualification cannot have the effect of excluding a candidate

possessing a higher qualification. Reliance in this regard was placed on the

preme Court in Zahoor Ahmad

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

K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and

and a Full Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh

respectively. A further prayer is made for issuance of writ in the nature of

PSTCL to permit the

a in engineering to apply and be

11/2021 dated 18.05.2021

to 350

Station

Attendant (ASSA) The essential eligibility qualifications prescribed therein

in Electrical/Wireman Trade

ion. The petitioners attempted to apply to the said

posts online but were unsuccessful since the portal did not allow them to

enter degree/diploma in Engineering as a qualification without selecting the

for the petitioner(s) submitted that the

petitioners cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration for possessing

qualification in the same field. It is settled law that prescription of a

candidate

possessing a higher qualification. Reliance in this regard was placed on the

Zahoor Ahmad

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

K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and

ngh

CWP-10347

vs. State of Punjab

also referred to the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in

Prasad and

in CWP-14779

candidate as ALM was challenged on the ground that he possessed a

diploma in Electrical Engineering instead of the prescribed qualification of a

two-year vocational course or ITI certification in the E

trade. It was held therein

Engineering) presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification (ITI

certificate), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in

Since the petitioner hold a higher qualification in the same l

compared to the prescribed ITI certification, their exclusion from the zone of

consideration is illegal, arbitrary and violative of their rights under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on a recent

judgments rendered by the Hon

Singh and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others

No.10389 of 2024

Court in Gyanender Rawal and others vs. State of Haryana

2022 decided on 08.07.2025.

5.

contended that it is settled law that it

lay down an

candidate for

provides an unambiguous eligibility criterion, which the petitioners do not

4

10347-2021 and connected cases

vs. State of Punjab and others 2010(3) SCT 703.

also referred to the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in

and another vs. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and

14779-2007 decided on 19.08.2009 wherein appointment

candidate as ALM was challenged on the ground that he possessed a

diploma in Electrical Engineering instead of the prescribed qualification of a

year vocational course or ITI certification in the E

trade. It was held therein that higher qualification (diploma in Electrical

Engineering) presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification (ITI

certificate), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in

Since the petitioner hold a higher qualification in the same l

compared to the prescribed ITI certification, their exclusion from the zone of

consideration is illegal, arbitrary and violative of their rights under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on a recent

ents rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Singh and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others

No.10389 of 2024 decided on 20.03.2025

Gyanender Rawal and others vs. State of Haryana

decided on 08.07.2025.

Per contra, learned Senior

contended that it is settled law that it is the prerogative of the employer to

lay down an eligibility criterion as it alone can best judge suitability of a

candidate for the advertised role. The advertisement (Annexure P

provides an unambiguous eligibility criterion, which the petitioners do not

and others 2010(3) SCT 703. Learned Senior counsel

also referred to the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in Jagdish

another vs. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others

decided on 19.08.2009 wherein appointment as of a

candidate as ALM was challenged on the ground that he possessed a

diploma in Electrical Engineering instead of the prescribed qualification of a

year vocational course or ITI certification in the Electrician/Wireman

that higher qualification (diploma in Electrical

Engineering) presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification (ITI

certificate), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA-121-2010

Since the petitioner hold a higher qualification in the same line of work as

compared to the prescribed ITI certification, their exclusion from the zone of

consideration is illegal, arbitrary and violative of their rights under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on a recent

ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar

Singh and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in Civil Appeal

decided on 20.03.2025 and a Coordinate Bench of this

Gyanender Rawal and others vs. State of Haryana in CWP-2793

Senior counsel for the respondent

is the prerogative of the employer to

on as it alone can best judge suitability of a

he advertisement (Annexure P-1)

provides an unambiguous eligibility criterion, which the petitioners do not

Senior counsel

Jagdish

others

as of a

candidate as ALM was challenged on the ground that he possessed a

diploma in Electrical Engineering instead of the prescribed qualification of a

ectrician/Wireman

that higher qualification (diploma in Electrical

Engineering) presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification (ITI

2010.

ine of work as

compared to the prescribed ITI certification, their exclusion from the zone of

consideration is illegal, arbitrary and violative of their rights under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on a recent

Chandra Shekhar

Civil Appeal

and a Coordinate Bench of this

2793-

for the respondent

is the prerogative of the employer to

on as it alone can best judge suitability of a

1)

provides an unambiguous eligibility criterion, which the petitioners do not

CWP-10347

satisfy. Moreover, nowhere in the said advertisement has it been

that the equivalent of ITI certification or a qualification higher than the same

would also be

consideration is vested in the petitioners, they cannot challenge the

eligibility criter

by the Hon

699 and Distt.Collector and Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare

Residential School Society) and

(1990) 3 SCC 655.

Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1

qualification than the one prescribed need not necessarily be treated as

fulfilling the

6.

others in CWP

qualification may not make a candidate better suited to the needs of the post.

As such, since the prerequisites are clearly state

(supra), the

adherence to the same. Learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the

judgment in

a Rule that expl

presuppose

cannot be made. Further still, the petitioners have not

the advertisement (supra) on the ground of

grant of equivalence to higher qualifications which begs the inference that

5

10347-2021 and connected cases

satisfy. Moreover, nowhere in the said advertisement has it been

that the equivalent of ITI certification or a qualification higher than the same

would also be considered for appointment. Therefore, since no right to claim

consideration is vested in the petitioners, they cannot challenge the

eligibility criteria for want of locus standi, in view of the judgment rendered

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Anita 2014(4) SCT

Distt.Collector and Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare

Residential School Society) and another

(1990) 3 SCC 655. Moreover, the Hon’

Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1

qualification than the one prescribed need not necessarily be treated as

the latter.

Further, this Court in Som Dutt vs. State of Haryana and

CWP-2231-1983 decide on 25.11.1983 had opined that a higher

qualification may not make a candidate better suited to the needs of the post.

such, since the prerequisites are clearly state

(supra), the respondent-PSTCL being the employer can insist on strict

adherence to the same. Learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the

judgment in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra)

a Rule that explicitly that acquisition of a higher qualification would

presuppose acquisition of a lower qualification, an inference to this effect

cannot be made. Further still, the petitioners have not

the advertisement (supra) on the ground of omission

grant of equivalence to higher qualifications which begs the inference that

satisfy. Moreover, nowhere in the said advertisement has it been mentioned

that the equivalent of ITI certification or a qualification higher than the same

for appointment. Therefore, since no right to claim

consideration is vested in the petitioners, they cannot challenge the

, in view of the judgment rendered

ate of Punjab vs. Anita 2014(4) SCT

Distt.Collector and Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare

another vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi

’ble Supreme Court in Official

has held that possessing a higher

qualification than the one prescribed need not necessarily be treated as

Som Dutt vs. State of Haryana and

decide on 25.11.1983 had opined that a higher

qualification may not make a candidate better suited to the needs of the post.

such, since the prerequisites are clearly stated in the advertisement

PSTCL being the employer can insist on strict

adherence to the same. Learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the

Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) to submit that in the absence of

icitly that acquisition of a higher qualification would

of a lower qualification, an inference to this effect

cannot be made. Further still, the petitioners have not challenged the vires of

omission of a clause pertaining to

grant of equivalence to higher qualifications which begs the inference that

mentioned

that the equivalent of ITI certification or a qualification higher than the same

for appointment. Therefore, since no right to claim

consideration is vested in the petitioners, they cannot challenge the

, in view of the judgment rendered

ate of Punjab vs. Anita 2014(4) SCT

Distt.Collector and Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare

dari Devi

Official

has held that possessing a higher

qualification than the one prescribed need not necessarily be treated as

Som Dutt vs. State of Haryana and

decide on 25.11.1983 had opined that a higher

qualification may not make a candidate better suited to the needs of the post.

d in the advertisement

PSTCL being the employer can insist on strict

adherence to the same. Learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the

to submit that in the absence of

icitly that acquisition of a higher qualification would

of a lower qualification, an inference to this effect

the vires of

of a clause pertaining to

grant of equivalence to higher qualifications which begs the inference that

CWP-10347

they are satisfied with the contents of same. As such, no relief can be

granted to them in terms of

Court in Prakash Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC

and a Division Bench of this Court in

others 2005 (1) SCT 571.

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

7.

the record of the case, it transpires that

advertisement dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P

recruitment to the posts of ALM and ASSA.

criteria were laid down in this r

“1.0 The pay scale and details of these posts are given below:

Sr.

No.

POST

CODE

2 23

3 63

8.

are required to have a qualified a full time ITI course in the trade of

6

10347-2021 and connected cases

they are satisfied with the contents of same. As such, no relief can be

granted to them in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon

Prakash Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC

and a Division Bench of this Court in Dhani Ram vs. State of Haryana and

others 2005 (1) SCT 571.

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after peru

the record of the case, it transpires that the respondent

advertisement dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P

recruitment to the posts of ALM and ASSA.

criteria were laid down in this regard:

The pay scale and details of these posts are given below:

POST

CODE

Name of

Post

(No. of

posts

No. of

Posts

Qualifications and

23

Assistant

Lineman

(A.L.M.)

350

No.

Punjabi

matriculation or its

equivalent level and

Full Time regular ITI in

Electrician/Wireman

Trade from a

recognized Institution.

63

Assistant

Sub

Station

Attendant

(ASSA)

150

No.

Punjabi

matriculation or its

equivalent level and

Full Time regular ITI in

Electrician/Wireman

Trade from a

recognized Institution.

The advertisement (Annexure P

are required to have a qualified a full time ITI course in the trade of

they are satisfied with the contents of same. As such, no relief can be

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Prakash Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC 484

Dhani Ram vs. State of Haryana and

heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing

respondent-PSPCL had issued an

advertisement dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for

recruitment to the posts of ALM and ASSA. The following eligibility

The pay scale and details of these posts are given below:

Required

Qualifications and

Experience

Pay Scale

Punjabi pass of

matriculation or its

equivalent level and

Full Time regular ITI in

Electrician/Wireman

Trade from a

recognized Institution. xxx”

Punjabi pass of

matriculation or its

equivalent level and

Full Time regular ITI in

Electrician/Wireman

Trade from a

recognized Institution.

The advertisement (Annexure P-1) clearly states that candidates

are required to have a qualified a full time ITI course in the trade of

they are satisfied with the contents of same. As such, no relief can be

Supreme

484

Dhani Ram vs. State of Haryana and

sing

PSPCL had issued an

1) inviting applications for

eligibility

Pay Scale

1) clearly states that candidates

are required to have a qualified a full time ITI course in the trade of

CWP-10347

Electrician/Wireman from a recognised institution. T

petitioners is limited their exclusion on the ground of them possessing

higher qualifications than that prescribed i.e. diploma/degree

field of Electrical Engineering.

 Equivalence of qualifications

9.

certification in the trade of Electrician/Wireman and diploma/degree in

Electrical Engineering begs the inference that their respective prescribed

syllabi must be distinct. In the absence of any Service Rule or clause in t

advertisement (supra) granting equivalence to higher qualifications, it cannot

be prima facie

candidate with

A two-Judge bench of the

and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2022 (1) SCT51,

that the Courts cannot expand the ambit of the 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

(1975) 3 SCC 76

of educational qualifications is a technic

assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and

practical attainments of such qualifications.

where the decision of the Government is based on th e

recommendation of an expert body, then the

relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the

purpose of determining equivalence, would not

decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous or

irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and

7

10347-2021 and connected cases

Electrician/Wireman from a recognised institution. T

petitioners is limited their exclusion on the ground of them possessing

higher qualifications than that prescribed i.e. diploma/degree

field of Electrical Engineering.

Equivalence of qualifications

The nomenclature of the courses in question i.e. ITI

certification in the trade of Electrician/Wireman and diploma/degree in

Electrical Engineering begs the inference that their respective prescribed

syllabi must be distinct. In the absence of any Service Rule or clause in t

advertisement (supra) granting equivalence to higher qualifications, it cannot

prima facie inferred that the higher qualification necessarily equips a

candidate with the knowledge a vocation-oriented course aims at providing.

Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

and others vs. State of Haryana and others 2022 (1) SCT51,

that the Courts cannot expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications, nor

can they decide on matters pertaining to equivalence of academic

qualifications. Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was

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

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

of educational qualifications is a technic

assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and

practical attainments of such qualifications.

where the decision of the Government is based on th e

recommendation of an expert body, then the

relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the

purpose of determining equivalence, would not

decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous or

irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and

Electrician/Wireman from a recognised institution. The grievance of the

petitioners is limited their exclusion on the ground of them possessing

higher qualifications than that prescribed i.e. diploma/degree-holders in the

the courses in question i.e. ITI

certification in the trade of Electrician/Wireman and diploma/degree in

Electrical Engineering begs the inference that their respective prescribed

syllabi must be distinct. In the absence of any Service Rule or clause in the

advertisement (supra) granting equivalence to higher qualifications, it cannot

inferred that the higher qualification necessarily equips a

oriented course aims at providing.

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 prescribed qualifications, nor

can they decide on matters pertaining to equivalence of academic

qualifications. Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was

Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors

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 th e

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

e grievance of the

petitioners is limited their exclusion on the ground of them possessing

holders in the

the courses in question i.e. ITI

certification in the trade of Electrician/Wireman and diploma/degree in

Electrical Engineering begs the inference that their respective prescribed

he

advertisement (supra) granting equivalence to higher qualifications, it cannot

inferred that the higher qualification necessarily equips a

oriented course aims at providing.

Devender Bhaskar

has opined

that the Courts cannot expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications, nor

can they decide on matters pertaining to equivalence of academic

qualifications. Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was

& Ors

the question regarding equivalence

al question based on proper

assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and

It was further held that

where the decision of the Government is based on th e

, uninformed of

relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the

lightly disturb the

decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous or

irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and

CWP-10347

perverse or manifestly wrong.

22. In

Others, (1990)

the court

various posts.

23. In

252 this

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 f

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 t

authority.

24. In

(2009) 1 SCC 610

technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed.

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 appe

the Court

that the distance education course had been recognized as such.

25. In

Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404

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, co

qualifications, etc.

the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the

prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification.

Equival

authority, to determine.

(emphasis added)

8

10347-2021 and connected cases

perverse or manifestly wrong.

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

Others, (1990) 1 SCC 288 this Court

court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for

various posts.

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

this Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification fo

admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service

are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held

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

technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed.

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 appe

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 th

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)

J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and

Court held that it is not for

to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for

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

held that the prescribed eligibility qualification fo

admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service

are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held

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

o the qualification prescribed by the

Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr.,

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 university therein,

held that no material had been produced before it to show

that the distance education course had been recognized as such.

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

, 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

urse content leading up to the acquisition of various

Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of

the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the

prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification.

ence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting

J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and

it is not for

to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for

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

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

From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the

or 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

o the qualification prescribed by the

Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr.,

equivalence is a

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

llant university therein,

held that no material had been produced before it to show

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

at 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

urse content leading up to the acquisition of various

Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of

the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the

prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification.

ence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting

CWP-10347

Further, a two

Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulbarga University (2014) 3 SCC 676

wherein speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad, the following was observed:

“21.

invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the

post of Lecturer in MCA. The advertisement

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.

post of Lecturer, Masters' degre

relevant subject.

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

the Board of appointment has not stated that post

in Mathematics is the r

substance it is equivalent to a post

reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.

This,

appointment.

22.

taught in the Masters' of Computer Application course.

Single Judge,

contention of Ganpat and the University that `relevant subject'

would mean `such o

course'.

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 wh

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 advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any

ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to.

Ganpat did not have a Masters' degree in Computer Application,

our opinion, he

Lecturer in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a candidate

possessing Masters' degree in MCA is available, the Bo

appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for

9

10347-2021 and connected cases

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

Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulbarga University (2014) 3 SCC 676

wherein speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad, the following was observed:

...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

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

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

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 Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.

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

appointment.

It shall not make any difference even if Mathematics is

taught in the Masters' of Computer Application course.

Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely

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

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

n those subjects as holder of Masters' degree in Computer

Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment.

the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any

ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to.

Ganpat did not have a Masters' degree in Computer Application,

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 Bo

appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for

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:

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

In our opinion, for appointment to the

e in the Mathematics is not the

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

elevant subject for MCA but in sum and

graduate degree in MCA for the

reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.

beyond the power of the Board of

ot make any difference even if Mathematics is

taught in the Masters' of Computer Application course. The learned

in our opinion, gravely erred in upholding the

contention of Ganpat and the University that `relevant subject'

f those subjects as are offered in the MCA

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

ich 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

n 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

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

Ganpath

Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulbarga University (2014) 3 SCC 676,

As is evident from the advertisement, applications were

invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the

graduate

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

in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean

appointment to the

e in the Mathematics is not the

The advertisement requires Masters' degree in

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

graduate degree

elevant subject for MCA but in sum and

graduate degree in MCA for the

reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.

beyond the power of the Board of

ot make any difference even if Mathematics is

The learned

erred in upholding the

contention of Ganpat and the University that `relevant subject'

f those subjects as are offered in the MCA

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

ich 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

n those subjects as holder of Masters' degree in Computer

The language of

the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any

ellant

in

was not entitled to be considered for appointment as

Lecturer in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a candidate

ard of

appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for

CWP-10347

appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore,

illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the University

acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpa

cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High

Court was right in setting aside his appointment.

an unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the

recommendee.

High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for

appointment of Lecturer in Masters' of Computer Application.”

10.

best judge to assess suitability of a candidate and lay down eligibility criteria

for a particular post. As such,

and within the legal framework,

employer or a domain

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare equivalence of an ITI

certificate

Engineering. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment

rendered by

Maharastra Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep

Shriram Warade and

Navin Sinha, has made the following observations in this regard:

“10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the

employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or

desirable qualif

employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate

must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature

of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility,

much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable

10

10347-2021 and connected cases

appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore,

illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the University

acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpa

cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High

Court was right in setting aside his appointment.

unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the

recommendee. We are of the opinion that

High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for

appointment of Lecturer in Masters' of Computer Application.”

Additionally, it is settled law that the employer is always the

est judge to assess suitability of a candidate and lay down eligibility criteria

for a particular post. As such, when the advertisement qua the same is clear

and within the legal framework, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the

employer or a domain expert and expand the

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare equivalence of an ITI

certificate in the trade of Electrician/Wireman

Engineering. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment

by a two-Judge bench of the

Maharastra Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep

Shriram Warade and others (2019) 6 SCC 362

Navin Sinha, has made the following observations in this regard:

10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the

employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or

desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference.

employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate

must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature

of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility,

uch less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable

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,

unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the

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.”

(emphasis added)

Additionally, it is settled law that the employer is always the

est judge to assess suitability of a candidate and lay down eligibility criteria

when the advertisement qua the same is clear

this Court cannot step into the shoes of the

expert and expand the scope of its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare equivalence of an ITI

in the trade of Electrician/Wireman to diplomas/degrees in

Engineering. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Maharastra Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep

2019) 6 SCC 362, speaking through Justice

Navin Sinha, has made the following observations in this regard:

10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the

employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or

ications, including any grant of preference. It is the

employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate

must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature

of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility,

uch less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable

appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore,

illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the University

t as Lecturer

cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High

In our opinion,

unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the

ision Bench of the

High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for

(emphasis added)

Additionally, it is settled law that the employer is always the

est judge to assess suitability of a candidate and lay down eligibility criteria

when the advertisement qua the same is clear

this Court cannot step into the shoes of the

scope of its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare equivalence of an ITI

to diplomas/degrees in

Engineering. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment

ble Supreme Court in

Maharastra Public Service Commission through its Secretary vs. Sandeep

, speaking through Justice

10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the

employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or

It is the

employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate

must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature

of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility,

uch less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable

CWP-10347

qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an

interpretive re

will also fall outside the domain of judicial review.

the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in

judgment over the same.

or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the

appointing authority after appro

accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial

review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is

best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement

contrary to t

11.

Md. Firoz Mansuri

68, has reiterated this approach and opined that the Courts cannot

its opinion for that of the employer. S

Chandra Sharma

“56. The Supreme Court in

(supra)

a post are for the employer to decide.

conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with

regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential

eligibility by an interpretive re

Question of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial

review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,

the court cannot sit in judgment over the same

57. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank &

Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and

suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the

employer.

xx

59. Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the

employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of

qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of

recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence,

arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts

11

10347-2021 and connected cases

qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an

interpretive re-writing of the advertisement.

will also fall outside the domain of judicial review.

the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in

judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement

or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the

appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in

accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial

review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is

best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement

contrary to the plain language of the same.

Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Firoz Mansuri and Ors vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

has reiterated this approach and opined that the Courts cannot

its opinion for that of the employer. S

Chandra Sharma, the following was observed:

“56. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission

(supra) reiterated that the essential qualifications for appointmen

a post are for the employer to decide.

conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with

regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential

eligibility by an interpretive re-

Question of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial

review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,

the court cannot sit in judgment over the same

57. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank &

Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and

suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the

employer.

xx

Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the

employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of

qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of

recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence,

rariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts

qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an

writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence

will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of

the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in

If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement

or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the

priate orders, to proceed in

accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial

review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is

best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement

he plain language of the same.”

(emphasis added)

Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2026 INSC

has reiterated this approach and opined that the Courts cannot substitute

its opinion for that of the employer. Speaking through Justice Satish

observed:

Maharashtra Public Service Commission

reiterated that the essential qualifications for appointment to

a post are for the employer to decide. The court cannot lay down the

conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with

regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential

-writing of the advertisement.

Question of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial

review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,

the court cannot sit in judgment over the same.

57. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar

Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and

suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the

xx

Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the

employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of

qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of

recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence,

rariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts

qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an

Questions of equivalence

the language of

the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in

If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement

or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the

priate orders, to proceed in

accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial

review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is

best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement

Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

2026 INSC

substitute

peaking through Justice Satish

Maharashtra Public Service Commission

t to

The court cannot lay down the

conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with

regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential

the advertisement.

Question of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial

review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear,

Anr. v. Anit Kumar

Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and

suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the

Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the

employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of

qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of

recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence,

rariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts

CWP-10347

cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of

qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the

employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public

employment doe

policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a

public post. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the needs

and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment, as

the case may be. 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

authority, to determine.

advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not

warrant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be

perverse. However, at the same time, the employe

arbitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.”

(emphasis added)

12.

recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer, the qualifications for which

were to be prescribed b

Safety and Standard Act, 2006. In the year 2022, the Central Government

had amended

Bachelor’

Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Biotechnology or Master

Chemistry or Degree in Medicine for the post of FSO.

the applicable Service Rules categorically provided for presupposition of a

lower qualification for

Zahoor Ahmad Rather(supra)

of a rule to this effect, such an inference cannot be drawn. Further still, in

Gyanender Rawal (supra),

12

10347-2021 and connected cases

cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of

qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the

employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public

employment does not extend to questioning the State’s wisdom or

policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a

public post. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the needs

and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment, as

case may be. 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

authority, to determine. The assessment of the expediency,

advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not

warrant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be

perverse. However, at the same time, the employe

arbitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.”

(emphasis added)

In Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra),

recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer, the qualifications for which

were to be prescribed by the Central Government in terms of the Food

Safety and Standard Act, 2006. In the year 2022, the Central Government

amended the Food Safety and Standard Rules by granting validity to

s degree, Master’s degree and Doctorate degree in the

Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Biotechnology or Master

Chemistry or Degree in Medicine for the post of FSO.

the applicable Service Rules categorically provided for presupposition of a

lower qualification for a candidate who hold higher qualifications. In fact, in

Zahoor Ahmad Rather(supra), it was specifically noted that in the absence

of a rule to this effect, such an inference cannot be drawn. Further still, in

Gyanender Rawal (supra), the Government of Hary

cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of

qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the

employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public

s not extend to questioning the State’s wisdom or

policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a

public post. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the needs

and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment, as

case may be. 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

The assessment of the expediency,

advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not

warrant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be

perverse. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act

arbitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.”

Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra), the matter pertained to

recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer, the qualifications for which

y the Central Government in terms of the Food

Safety and Standard Act, 2006. In the year 2022, the Central Government

the Food Safety and Standard Rules by granting validity to

s degree and Doctorate degree in the field of

Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Biotechnology or Master’s degree in

Chemistry or Degree in Medicine for the post of FSO. In Jyoti K.K. (supra),

the applicable Service Rules categorically provided for presupposition of a

who hold higher qualifications. In fact, in

, it was specifically noted that in the absence

of a rule to this effect, such an inference cannot be drawn. Further still, in

Government of Haryana had issued a

cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of

qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the

employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public

s not extend to questioning the State’s wisdom or

policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a

public post. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the needs

and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment, as

case may be. 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

recruiting

The assessment of the expediency,

advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not

warrant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be

r cannot act

the matter pertained to

recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer, the qualifications for which

y the Central Government in terms of the Food

Safety and Standard Act, 2006. In the year 2022, the Central Government

the Food Safety and Standard Rules by granting validity to

field of

s degree in

Jyoti K.K. (supra),

the applicable Service Rules categorically provided for presupposition of a

who hold higher qualifications. In fact, in

, it was specifically noted that in the absence

of a rule to this effect, such an inference cannot be drawn. Further still, in

ana had issued a

CWP-10347

notification dated 16.06.1979 according eligibility to candidates possessing

higher qualification in the same line as prescribed in the minimum

qualification. The same was also reiterated vide letter dated 25.03.2016.

said instructions

UHBVNL. However, no such instruction or notification has been put forth

by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in relation to the State of Punjab

or the respondent

Singh (supra), Jyoti K.K. (supra), Gyanender Rawal (supra)

Prasad (supra)

 Violation of Articles 14

13.

proscribes unreasonable classification. In order to establish that an artificial

distinction is constitutionally valid, it must be backed by an intelligible

differentia i.e. have a clear criter

and bear a rational nexus to the object it seeks to achieve.

such classification would be in breach of the promise of equality enshrined

in Article 14 of the Constitution.

to the judgment rendered by a three

others vs. The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and others

2017(4) SCT 119

following was opined:

“14)

rule of law and uphold the values and principles of the Constitution.

Respondents herein alleged that creating an artificial distinction

between the persons in the same cadre would amount to

13

10347-2021 and connected cases

notification dated 16.06.1979 according eligibility to candidates possessing

higher qualification in the same line as prescribed in the minimum

qualification. The same was also reiterated vide letter dated 25.03.2016.

said instructions were also adopted by the employer therein i.e. the

UHBVNL. However, no such instruction or notification has been put forth

by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in relation to the State of Punjab

respondent-PSTCL. Thus, the reliance placed o

Singh (supra), Jyoti K.K. (supra), Gyanender Rawal (supra)

Prasad (supra) is unfounded.

Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

It must be understood that Article 14 of the Constitution only

proscribes unreasonable classification. In order to establish that an artificial

distinction is constitutionally valid, it must be backed by an intelligible

differentia i.e. have a clear criterion for grouping certain people together,

and bear a rational nexus to the object it seeks to achieve.

such classification would be in breach of the promise of equality enshrined

in Article 14 of the Constitution. Reference in this rega

to the judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench in

others vs. The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and others

2017(4) SCT 119, wherein speaking through Justice R.K. Agrawal, the

following was opined:

14) It is a cardinal principle of law that government has to abide by

rule of law and uphold the values and principles of the Constitution.

Respondents herein alleged that creating an artificial distinction

between the persons in the same cadre would amount to

notification dated 16.06.1979 according eligibility to candidates possessing

higher qualification in the same line as prescribed in the minimum

qualification. The same was also reiterated vide letter dated 25.03.2016. The

were also adopted by the employer therein i.e. the

UHBVNL. However, no such instruction or notification has been put forth

by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in relation to the State of Punjab

, the reliance placed on Chandra Shekhar

Singh (supra), Jyoti K.K. (supra), Gyanender Rawal (supra) and Jagdish

of the Constitution

It must be understood that Article 14 of the Constitution only

proscribes unreasonable classification. In order to establish that an artificial

distinction is constitutionally valid, it must be backed by an intelligible

ion for grouping certain people together,

and bear a rational nexus to the object it seeks to achieve. In absence thereof,

such classification would be in breach of the promise of equality enshrined

Reference in this regard can also be made

Judge Bench in State of Punjab and

others vs. The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and others

, wherein speaking through Justice R.K. Agrawal, the

It is a cardinal principle of law that government has to abide by

rule of law and uphold the values and principles of the Constitution.

Respondents herein alleged that creating an artificial distinction

between the persons in the same cadre would amount to violation of

notification dated 16.06.1979 according eligibility to candidates possessing

higher qualification in the same line as prescribed in the minimum

The

were also adopted by the employer therein i.e. the

UHBVNL. However, no such instruction or notification has been put forth

by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in relation to the State of Punjab

Chandra Shekhar

Jagdish

It must be understood that Article 14 of the Constitution only

proscribes unreasonable classification. In order to establish that an artificial

distinction is constitutionally valid, it must be backed by an intelligible

ion for grouping certain people together,

In absence thereof,

such classification would be in breach of the promise of equality enshrined

rd can also be made

State of Punjab and

others vs. The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association and others

, wherein speaking through Justice R.K. Agrawal, the

It is a cardinal principle of law that government has to abide by

rule of law and uphold the values and principles of the Constitution.

Respondents herein alleged that creating an artificial distinction

violation of

CWP-10347

Article 14 i.e. equality before law and hence, such an act cannot be

sustained. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept

having many dimensions.

assuring equality before the law an

also disallow discrimination which lacks the object of achieving

equality, in matters of employment. It is well settled that though

Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable

classification. When

classification is assailed on the ground that it is contrary to Article

14, its validity can be sustained if it satisfies two tests, namely, that

the classification was to be based on an intelligible differentia wh

distinguishes persons or things grouped together from the others left

out of the group, and the differentia in question must have a

reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved by the rule or

statutory provision in question.

rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object

intended to be achieved by the Statute or the Rule.

added)

14.

of opportunity for all citizens in

becoming an expression of the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14. On

that note, if a S

whimsical or irrelevant considerations, such action be rendered

nature and in violation of both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a

Constitution Bench of this C

and another 1974 AIR SC 555

Bhagwati, the following was opined:

“82. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for

consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of

challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is

and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation

14

10347-2021 and connected cases

Article 14 i.e. equality before law and hence, such an act cannot be

sustained. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept

having many dimensions. Articles 14

assuring equality before the law an

also disallow discrimination which lacks the object of achieving

equality, in matters of employment. It is well settled that though

Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable

classification. When any rule of statutory provision providing

classification is assailed on the ground that it is contrary to Article

14, its validity can be sustained if it satisfies two tests, namely, that

the classification was to be based on an intelligible differentia wh

distinguishes persons or things grouped together from the others left

out of the group, and the differentia in question must have a

reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved by the rule or

statutory provision in question. In other

rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object

intended to be achieved by the Statute or the Rule.

added)

Moreover, Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality

of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment, thereby

becoming an expression of the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14. On

that note, if a State employer limits the zone of consideration motivated by

whimsical or irrelevant considerations, such action be rendered

nature and in violation of both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a

Constitution Bench of this Court in E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu

and another 1974 AIR SC 555 wherein, speaking through Justice P.N.

Bhagwati, the following was opined:

82. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for

consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of

challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is

and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation

Article 14 i.e. equality before law and hence, such an act cannot be

sustained. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept

Articles 14-18 of the Constitution, besides

assuring equality before the law and equal protection of the laws,

also disallow discrimination which lacks the object of achieving

equality, in matters of employment. It is well settled that though

Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable

any rule of statutory provision providing

classification is assailed on the ground that it is contrary to Article

14, its validity can be sustained if it satisfies two tests, namely, that

the classification was to be based on an intelligible differentia which

distinguishes persons or things grouped together from the others left

out of the group, and the differentia in question must have a

reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved by the rule or

In other words, there must be some

rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object

intended to be achieved by the Statute or the Rule.” (emphasis

Moreover, Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality

matters of public employment, thereby

becoming an expression of the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14. On

ate employer limits the zone of consideration motivated by

whimsical or irrelevant considerations, such action be rendered arbitrary in

nature and in violation of both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a

E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu

wherein, speaking through Justice P.N.

82. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for

consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of

challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance

and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation

Article 14 i.e. equality before law and hence, such an act cannot be

sustained. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept

18 of the Constitution, besides

d equal protection of the laws,

also disallow discrimination which lacks the object of achieving

equality, in matters of employment. It is well settled that though

Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable

any rule of statutory provision providing

classification is assailed on the ground that it is contrary to Article

14, its validity can be sustained if it satisfies two tests, namely, that

ich

distinguishes persons or things grouped together from the others left

out of the group, and the differentia in question must have a

reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved by the rule or

ust be some

rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object

(emphasis

Moreover, Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality

matters of public employment, thereby

becoming an expression of the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14. On

ate employer limits the zone of consideration motivated by

arbitrary in

nature and in violation of both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment rendered by a

E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu

wherein, speaking through Justice P.N.

82. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for

consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of

really in substance

and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation

CWP-10347

of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee

that Article

in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under

the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental

right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality

of opportunity in pub

up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the

Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the

concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words,

Article

effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public

employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both

Articles 14 and 1

Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle ?

It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose J., "a way of fife", and

it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicogr

approach.

embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its

activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects

and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed cabined and

within traditional and doctrinaire limits.

view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and

arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a

republic while the other, to the whi

monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is

unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and

is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter

relating to public emplo

Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an( ensure

fairness and equality of treatment.

must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all

similarly

irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality.

Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from

motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitima

and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible

considerations, it would amount to

that is hit by Articles 14 and 16.

arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanat

vice in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by

Articles 14 and 16.

15

10347-2021 and connected cases

of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee

that Article 14 as there shall be equality of op

in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under

the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental

right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality

of opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building

up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the

Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the

concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words,

Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is aspects. Article 16 gives

effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public

employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both

Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination.

Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle ?

It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose J., "a way of fife", and

it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicogr

approach. We cannot countenance any

embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its

activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects

and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed cabined and

within traditional and doctrinaire limits.

view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and

arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a

republic while the other, to the whi

monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is

unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and

is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter

relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16.

Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an( ensure

fairness and equality of treatment.

must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all

similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or

irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality.

Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from

motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitima

and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible

considerations, it would amount to mala fide

that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide

arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanat

vice in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by

Articles 14 and 16.”

of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee

as there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens

in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under

the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental

right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality

lic employment which is so vital to the building

up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the

Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the

concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words,

is the genus while Article 16 is aspects. Article 16 gives

effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public

employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both

6 is equality and inhibition against discrimination.

Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle ?

It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose J., "a way of fife", and

it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic

We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all

embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its

activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects

and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed cabined and confined"

within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of

view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and

arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a

republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute

monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is

unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and

is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter

yment, it is also violative of Article 16.

Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an( ensure

fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action

must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all

situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or

irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality.

Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from

motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate

and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible

mala fide exercise of power and

Mala fide exercise of power and

arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same

vice in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by

of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee

portunity for all citizens

in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under

the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental

right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality

lic employment which is so vital to the building

up of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the

Constitution, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the

concept of equality enshrined in Article 14. In other words,

is the genus while Article 16 is aspects. Article 16 gives

effect to the doctrine of equality in all matters relating to public

employment. The basic principle which, therefore, informs both

6 is equality and inhibition against discrimination.

Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle ?

It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose J., "a way of fife", and

aphic

attempt to truncate its all-

embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its

activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects

confined"

From a positivistic point of

view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and

arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a

m and caprice of an absolute

monarch. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is

unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and

is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter

yment, it is also violative of Article 16.

Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action an( ensure

State action

must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all

situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or

irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality.

Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from

te

and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible

exercise of power and

ower and

ing from the same

vice in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by

CWP-10347

Further, a

Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722

Justice P.N. Bhagwati,

“16.

Airport Authority's case (1979) 3 SCR 1014) at p. 1042 (supra) of the

Report.

Article

arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.

of classification which is evolved by the Cour

Article

judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive

action in question is arbitrary and

equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the

two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or

executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of

equality under Articl

there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature

or of the executive or of an "authority" under Article 12,

Article

State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non

arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a

golden thread which runs through the whole of

Constitution.

15.

empowered by

entitled to regulate recruitment and prescribe

furtherance thereof, the

provide an eligibility

who possess

16

10347-2021 and connected cases

Further, a Constitution Bench of the Hon

Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722

Justice P.N. Bhagwati, made the following observations:

...This was again reiterated by this Court In International

Airport Authority's case (1979) 3 SCR 1014) at p. 1042 (supra) of the

Report. It must therefore now be taken to be

Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is

arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality.

of classification which is evolved by the Cour

Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a

judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive

action in question is arbitrary and

equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the

two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or

executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of

equality under Article 14 would be breached.

there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature

or of the executive or of an "authority" under Article 12,

Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such

State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non

arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a

golden thread which runs through the whole of

Constitution.”

Adverting to the matter at hand, as a State employer,

empowered by Article 309 of the Constitution, the

entitled to regulate recruitment and prescribe

furtherance thereof, the respondent-PSTCL has specifically chosen

provide an eligibility criterion that limits the zone of consideration to those

who possess ITI certificate in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a recognised

(emphasis added)

Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay

Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722, speaking through

the following observations:

This was again reiterated by this Court In International

Airport Authority's case (1979) 3 SCR 1014) at p. 1042 (supra) of the

It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what

strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is

arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine

of classification which is evolved by the Courts is not paraphrase of

nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a

judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive

action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of

equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the

two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or

executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of

would be breached. Wherever therefore

there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature

or of the executive or of an "authority" under Article 12,

immediately springs into action and strikes down such

State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non

arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a

golden thread which runs through the whole of the fabric of the

(emphasis added)

Adverting to the matter at hand, as a State employer,

309 of the Constitution, the respondent-PSTCL is

entitled to regulate recruitment and prescribe conditions for the same. In

PSTCL has specifically chosen to

that limits the zone of consideration to those

in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a recognised

(emphasis added)

Ajay

speaking through

This was again reiterated by this Court In International

Airport Authority's case (1979) 3 SCR 1014) at p. 1042 (supra) of the

well settled that what

strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is

The doctrine

ts is not paraphrase of

nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a

judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive

therefore constituting denial of

equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the

two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or

executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of

Wherever therefore

there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature

or of the executive or of an "authority" under Article 12,

immediately springs into action and strikes down such

State action. In fact, the concept of reasonableness and non-

arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional scheme and is a

the fabric of the

(emphasis added)

Adverting to the matter at hand, as a State employer,

PSTCL is

for the same. In

to

that limits the zone of consideration to those

in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a recognised

CWP-10347

institution, th

syllabus prescribed by for the ITI course in the trade of

Electrician/Wireman

inculcating practical knowledge pertaining to use of electri

On the other hand, diploma/degree courses, although traditionally longer and

more intensive, might not guarantee to provide the same immediate and

primarily practical skill set as a tradesman. Therefore, the respondent

PSTCL is justified in

who possess the skills that specifically aid in performance of the duties of an

ALM and ASSA may only be employed.

16.

opportunities as compared to those who hold a diploma/degree in the field of

Engineering. Thus, the respondent

employer by taking a policy decision favouring the f

diploma/degree holders are not explicitly excluded from application by

virtue of their

Md. Firoz

Chandra Sharma

“62. The course structure of Diploma in Pharmacy is governed by the

Education Regulations, 1991, which has been replaced by the

Education Regulation, 2020. The Diploma in Pharmacy course

mandates 500 hours of compulsory practical trai

hours devoted to dispensing prescriptions. The 2020 Regulation has

refined the scope of training, limiting it to hospital, dispensary, or

1

Government of India, Ministry Of Skill Development &

Training Competency Based Curriculum

https://www.cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Electrician_CTS2.0_NSQF

https://www.cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Wireman_CTS2.0_NSQF

17

10347-2021 and connected cases

institution, thereby providing an intelligible differentia. A

syllabus prescribed by for the ITI course in the trade of

Electrician/Wireman

1

indicates that the focus is on hands

inculcating practical knowledge pertaining to use of electri

On the other hand, diploma/degree courses, although traditionally longer and

more intensive, might not guarantee to provide the same immediate and

primarily practical skill set as a tradesman. Therefore, the respondent

PSTCL is justified in limiting its recruitment process to those candidates

who possess the skills that specifically aid in performance of the duties of an

ALM and ASSA may only be employed.

Notably, ITI certificate holders have a limited number of

opportunities as compared to those who hold a diploma/degree in the field of

Engineering. Thus, the respondent-PSTCL cannot be faulted as a State

employer by taking a policy decision favouring the f

diploma/degree holders are not explicitly excluded from application by

their qualification. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on

oz Mansuri (supra), wherein s

Chandra Sharma, the following was held:

62. The course structure of Diploma in Pharmacy is governed by the

Education Regulations, 1991, which has been replaced by the

Education Regulation, 2020. The Diploma in Pharmacy course

mandates 500 hours of compulsory practical trai

hours devoted to dispensing prescriptions. The 2020 Regulation has

refined the scope of training, limiting it to hospital, dispensary, or

Government of India, Ministry Of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of

Training Competency Based Curriculum for Electrician and Wireman, respectively.

https://www.cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Electrician_CTS2.0_NSQF

https://www.cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Wireman_CTS2.0_NSQF

ereby providing an intelligible differentia. A perusal of the

syllabus prescribed by for the ITI course in the trade of

indicates that the focus is on hands-on experience and

inculcating practical knowledge pertaining to use of electrical equipment.

On the other hand, diploma/degree courses, although traditionally longer and

more intensive, might not guarantee to provide the same immediate and

primarily practical skill set as a tradesman. Therefore, the respondent

limiting its recruitment process to those candidates

who possess the skills that specifically aid in performance of the duties of an

Notably, ITI certificate holders have a limited number of

opportunities as compared to those who hold a diploma/degree in the field of

PSTCL cannot be faulted as a State

employer by taking a policy decision favouring the former, especially when

diploma/degree holders are not explicitly excluded from application by

qualification. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on

speaking through Justice Satish

62. The course structure of Diploma in Pharmacy is governed by the

Education Regulations, 1991, which has been replaced by the

Education Regulation, 2020. The Diploma in Pharmacy course

mandates 500 hours of compulsory practical training, including 250

hours devoted to dispensing prescriptions. The 2020 Regulation has

refined the scope of training, limiting it to hospital, dispensary, or

Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of

Electrician and Wireman, respectively.

https://www.cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Electrician_CTS2.0_NSQF-4.pdf

https://www.cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Wireman_CTS2.0_NSQF-3.pdf

of the

syllabus prescribed by for the ITI course in the trade of

on experience and

cal equipment.

On the other hand, diploma/degree courses, although traditionally longer and

more intensive, might not guarantee to provide the same immediate and

primarily practical skill set as a tradesman. Therefore, the respondent-

limiting its recruitment process to those candidates

who possess the skills that specifically aid in performance of the duties of an

Notably, ITI certificate holders have a limited number of

opportunities as compared to those who hold a diploma/degree in the field of

PSTCL cannot be faulted as a State

ormer, especially when

diploma/degree holders are not explicitly excluded from application by

qualification. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on

peaking through Justice Satish

62. The course structure of Diploma in Pharmacy is governed by the

Education Regulations, 1991, which has been replaced by the

Education Regulation, 2020. The Diploma in Pharmacy course

ning, including 250

hours devoted to dispensing prescriptions. The 2020 Regulation has

refined the scope of training, limiting it to hospital, dispensary, or

CWP-10347

clinic

Regulations, 2014, degree students are

of practical training and they have the option to undertake the

training either in a hospital/ community centre or within the

pharmaceutical industry.

in different subjects. Merely beca

entry of diplomates in the second year of B. Pharm course, it does

not render the degree an in

qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in

another. Furthermore, the di

avenues as compared to degree holders. Thus, the decision of the

State in making possession of a Diploma an essential qualification

for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary. The State has merely

identified a narrower

suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool

registered pharmacists.

63. This policy rationale finds reinforcement in a decision by the

Patna High Court in the case of

Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors. in LPA No. 1416

of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11096 of 2018

was held that,

18

10347-2021 and connected cases

clinic-based activities. While, under the B. Pharma course

Regulations, 2014, degree students are

of practical training and they have the option to undertake the

training either in a hospital/ community centre or within the

pharmaceutical industry. The diplomates and graduates are trained

in different subjects. Merely because there is a provision for lateral

entry of diplomates in the second year of B. Pharm course, it does

not render the degree an in-

qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in

another. Furthermore, the diplomates have limited employment

avenues as compared to degree holders. Thus, the decision of the

State in making possession of a Diploma an essential qualification

for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary. The State has merely

identified a narrower catchment of candidates it considers most

suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool

registered pharmacists.

63. This policy rationale finds reinforcement in a decision by the

Patna High Court in the case of

Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors. in LPA No. 1416

of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11096 of 2018

was held that,

“….it was a matter of policy to offer the employment

only to Diploma holders who have no avenues

available to Degree holders.

job opportunities on the post of Assistant Engineers,

Executive Engineers and other posts which are not

available to Diploma holders and they are confined only

to offer themselves for the post

the scheme of the conditions of service of the appellant

company. Thus, the decision to offer the post of Junior

Electrical Engineer to only Diploma holders does not

amount to such prohibition against Degree holders that

may allow us to invoke Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India in favour of the Degree holders who

still have other job opportunities….

based activities. While, under the B. Pharma course

Regulations, 2014, degree students are required to undergo 150 hours

of practical training and they have the option to undertake the

training either in a hospital/ community centre or within the

The diplomates and graduates are trained

use there is a provision for lateral

entry of diplomates in the second year of B. Pharm course, it does

-line higher qualification. A

qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in

plomates have limited employment

avenues as compared to degree holders. Thus, the decision of the

State in making possession of a Diploma an essential qualification

for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary. The State has merely

catchment of candidates it considers most

suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool

63. This policy rationale finds reinforcement in a decision by the

Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Power (Holding)

Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors. in LPA No. 1416

of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11096 of 2018, wherein it

it was a matter of policy to offer the employment

only to Diploma holders who have no avenues that are

available to Degree holders. The Degree holders have

job opportunities on the post of Assistant Engineers,

Executive Engineers and other posts which are not

available to Diploma holders and they are confined only

to offer themselves for the post of Junior Engineers under

the scheme of the conditions of service of the appellant

Thus, the decision to offer the post of Junior

Electrical Engineer to only Diploma holders does not

amount to such prohibition against Degree holders that

us to invoke Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India in favour of the Degree holders who

still have other job opportunities….”

(emphasis supplied)

based activities. While, under the B. Pharma course

required to undergo 150 hours

of practical training and they have the option to undertake the

training either in a hospital/ community centre or within the

The diplomates and graduates are trained

use there is a provision for lateral

entry of diplomates in the second year of B. Pharm course, it does

line higher qualification. A

qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in

plomates have limited employment

avenues as compared to degree holders. Thus, the decision of the

State in making possession of a Diploma an essential qualification

for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary. The State has merely

catchment of candidates it considers most

suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool

63. This policy rationale finds reinforcement in a decision by the

(Holding)

Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors. in LPA No. 1416

, wherein it

it was a matter of policy to offer the employment

that are

The Degree holders have

job opportunities on the post of Assistant Engineers,

Executive Engineers and other posts which are not

available to Diploma holders and they are confined only

of Junior Engineers under

the scheme of the conditions of service of the appellant

Thus, the decision to offer the post of Junior

Electrical Engineer to only Diploma holders does not

amount to such prohibition against Degree holders that

us to invoke Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India in favour of the Degree holders who

(emphasis supplied)

CWP-10347

64. Additionally, there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or

postgraduate degree holders. The

possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. No

disproportionate harm is caused to them so as to attract Articles 14

or 16 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

17.

condition requiring an ITI

recognised institution for applying to the post of ALM or ASSA, as laid

down by advertisement no.CRA

issued by the respondent

petitioners. Accordingly, all the abovementioned present petitions are

dismissed.

18.

disposed of.

22.01.2026

P.C

19

10347-2021 and connected cases

Additionally, there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or

postgraduate degree holders. They remain eligible, provided they

possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. No

disproportionate harm is caused to them so as to attract Articles 14

or 16 of the Constitution.”

CONCLUSION

In view of the discussion above, this C

condition requiring an ITI certificate in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a

recognised institution for applying to the post of ALM or ASSA, as laid

down by advertisement no.CRA-11/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure

issued by the respondent-PSTCL to be infringing upon the rights of the

. Accordingly, all the abovementioned present petitions are

Pending miscellaneous application

disposed of.

Whether speaking/reasoned. :

Whether Reportable. :

Additionally, there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or

y remain eligible, provided they

possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. No

disproportionate harm is caused to them so as to attract Articles 14

(emphasis added)

discussion above, this Court does not find the

in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a

recognised institution for applying to the post of ALM or ASSA, as laid

11/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P-1)

PSTCL to be infringing upon the rights of the

. Accordingly, all the abovementioned present petitions are

application(s), if any shall also stand

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No

Yes/No

Additionally, there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or

y remain eligible, provided they

possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. No

disproportionate harm is caused to them so as to attract Articles 14

(emphasis added)

urt does not find the

in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a

recognised institution for applying to the post of ALM or ASSA, as laid

1)

PSTCL to be infringing upon the rights of the

. Accordingly, all the abovementioned present petitions are

(s), if any shall also stand

SINGH BRAR)