CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(I) CWP-2533-2017 (O&M)

Reserved on: 13.10.2025

Pronounced on: 08.01.2026

Uploaded on: 09.01.2026

SURINDER MOHAN AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(II) CWP-1067-2017 (O&M)

RAVINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(III) CWP-14501-2017 (O&M)

DHEERAJ SAINI -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(IV) CWP-14784-2017 (O&M)

AMANDEEP SINGH -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(V) CWP-2984-2017 (O&M)

RAHUL DEV SINGH RANA -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(VI) CWP-400-2017 (O&M)

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 2

MANISH KUMAR -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(VII) CWP-477-2017 (O&M)

NAVDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(VIII)CWP-721-2017 (O&M)

RUSTAM BIR SINGH -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

(IX) CWP-8491-2017 (O&M)

SUKHJEET SINGH -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CWP-2533-2017).

Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, and

Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CWP-1067-2017).

Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-14784-2017).

Mr. Mohit, Advocate, for

Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-2984-2017).

Ms. Bisman Mann, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-400-2017).

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 3

Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate

for the petitioners (in CWP-477-2017).

Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate

for the petitioner (in CWP-721-2017).

Mr. Mohit Sadana, Advocate (Through V.C.)

for the petitioner (in CWP-8491-2017).

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Additional A.G., Punjab, assisted by

Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Ms. Ekjot Sandhu, Advocate

for the respondent No.4 – G.N.D.U. (in CWP-2533-2017).

Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate, and

Ms. Shivani Saini, Advocate

for the respondent No.4 (in CWP-14501-2017).

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

Mr. Gauravjit S. Patwalia, Advocate

for the intervenor/proposed respondent no.7

(in CWP-1067-2017).

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. All these writ petitions are amenable for being decided

through a common verdict on account of theirs inhering a common

question of law and fact. In essence, the petitioners are aggrieved by the

respondents’ decision declaring them ineligible for appointment to the

post of Intelligence Assistant (in the respective ranks of Constable and

Sub-Inspector) on the ground of non-fulfilment of the prescribed

educational qualifications.

2. Concisely and compendiously, the respondent(s)-department,

vide Advertisement No.1/2016 dated 01.09.2016 and Advertisement

No.2/2016 dated 08.09.2016, invited online applications for direct

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 4

recruitment to fill up vacancies of male and female Intelligence Assistants

and Intelligence Officers, in the respective ranks of Constable and Sub-

Inspector, in the Intelligence Wing of Punjab Police. The petitioners

applied within the stipulated period and successfully cleared the physical

efficiency test, whereafter they were permitted to appear in the written

examination. However, upon scrutiny of documents by a duly constituted

Committee, the petitioners were found ineligible on account of non-

fulfilment of the prescribed educational qualifications.

3. Since the fulcrum of the dispute consists of the educational

qualifications prescribed in the respective advertisements (supra), it is

deemed imperative, at the outset, to advert to and examine the prescribed

educational qualifications, which are reproduced hereinafter:-

“ADVT. NO.: 1/2016

C. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:

The minimum educational qualification for direct

recruitment as Intelligence Assistants (in rank of Constables)

shall be as defined in Appendix 'B' (Sr. No. 04) of Punjab

Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 2015 as amended

by the Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service (First

Amendment) Rules, 2016:

(a) Should be a graduate from a recognized university or

institution, as the case may be, provided that such candidate

should also possess an ‘O’ Level Certificate of Information

Technology from Department for Electronics Accreditation of

Computer Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics

and Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution

recognized by the Government of India or any State Government;

OR

(b) B.Sc/B.Tech./BE in Information Technology or Computer

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 5

Science or Information Systems or B.C.A or Post Graduate

Diploma in Computer Applications from a recognized university

or institution, as the case maybe.”

“ADVT. NO.: 2/2016

C. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:

The minimum educational qualification for direct

recruitment as intelligence Officers (in the rank of Sub-

Inspectors) shall be as defined in Appendix 'B' (Sr. No. 01) of

Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 2015 as

amended by the Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service

(First Amendment) Rules, 2016:

(a) Should be a graduate from a recognized university or

institution, as the case may be, provided that such candidate

should also possess an ‘O’ Level Certificate of Information

Technology from Department for Electronics Accreditation of

Computer Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics

and Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution

recognized by the Government of India or any State Government;

OR

(b) B.Sc/B.Tech./BE in Information Technology or Computer

Science or Information Systems or B.C.A or Post Graduate

Diploma in Computer Applications from a recognized university

or institution, as the case maybe.”

4. It has consistently been the case of the petitioners that they

possess degrees of B.Sc. with Computer Science or qualifications higher

than the ‘O’ Level Certificate of Information Technology from

Department for Electronics Accreditation of Computer Course

(hereinafter referred to as the “DOEACC”). Conversely, the respondents

maintain that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications, as

prescribed, and that their candidature was, therefore, rightly rejected.

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 6

COLLECTIVE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

PETITIONERS

5. In beseeching the reliefs yearned for in these writ petitions,

learned counsel for the petitioners, led by Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate,

advanced collective arguments. The principal contention is that although

the degrees issued to the petitioners merely bear the nomenclature

“B.Sc.”, the petitioners pursued and passed the B.Sc. course with Physics,

Mathematics, and Computer Science as their subjects, which, according to

them, constitutes B.Sc. (Computer Science). Reliance is placed upon the

prospectus of D.A.V. College, Jalandhar, which is affiliated with Guru

Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, and from where some of the petitioners

graduated, to contend that B.Sc. (General) with Computer Science as a

subject is equivalent to B.Sc. (Computer Science). Further reliance is

placed on the fee receipts issued to the petitioners at the time of

admission, wherein the course is reflected as B.Sc. (Computer Science).

6. The next argument is that the petitioners are graduates and

have studied the subject of Computer Science in their B.Sc. course, which

is much higher than ‘O’ Level Certificate of Information Technology

from the DOEACC, as has been specifically clarified by the Panjab

University, Chandigarh, and Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, vide

letters dated 28.12.2016 and 04.01.2017. Further, it is submitted that

during the pendency of these writ petitions, two of the petitioners namely

Dheeraj Saini and Harjinder Singh were issued fresh and corrected

degrees by the University(ies) concerned, and hence now they possess the

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 7

degrees of B.Sc. (Computer Science). Therefore, they are eligible to be

considered for appointment to the advertised posts.

7. Elaborating the arguments, Ms. Bisman Mann, Advoc ate,

submits that the essential eligibility requirements, as enclosed in Para

5(C) of the Advertisement No.2/2016, prescribes two distinct categories

of educational qualifications and a candidate fulfilling either category is

eligible. It is submitted that petitioner- Manish Kumar (CWP-400-2017)

satisfies Category (b), which requires a B.Sc./B.Tech./B.E. in Information

Technology or Computer Science or Information Systems or B.C.A. or a

Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications from a recognized

University or Institution. Petitioner- Manish Kumar holds a B.Sc.

(Computer Science) degree from D.A.V. College, Chandigarh, affiliated

with Panjab University, Chandigarh, and his Detailed Marks Cards for all

three years reflect Physics, Mathematics, and Computer Science as his

subject combination. Moreover, a clarification dated 26.12.2016 issued by

D.A.V. College certifies him as a bona fide student of B.Sc. (Computer

Science).

8. To fortify her submissions, learned counsel also refers to a

clarification obtained from the University Grants Commission (UGC)

with regard to equivalence, which states that no specific regulations have

been framed regarding subject combinations for B.Sc. (Computer

Science), and that such determination rests with the concerned University

or the recruiting authority. Reference is also made to the UGC

(Specification of Degrees) Notification dated 05.07.2014, which mandates

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 8

that degree nomenclature and minimum instructional standards be clearly

specified in admission brochures and on institutional websites. The

Admission Brochure for the academic session 2012-13 of the college of

petitioner- Manish Kumar specifies that the combination of Physics,

Mathematics, and Computer Science falls under B.Sc. (Computer

Science). It is thus argued that the expression “B.Sc. (General)” refers

merely to the degree title, whereas the stream is determined by the

combination of subjects studied. Therefore, the degree of B.Sc. (General)

held by petitioner- Manish Kumar has to be considered as degree of B.Sc.

(Computer Science).

9. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, also joined the same wagon and

reiterated the hereinabove advanced arguments. He submits that

equivalence of qualifications must be determined by the concerned

University, which, in the present case, has clarified that a B.Sc. degree

with Computer Science as a subject be recognized much higher than that

of ‘O’ Level Course of the DOEACC. Consequently, the petitioners, on

account of theirs possessing higher qualifications than the one prescribed

in the advertisements, are eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

10. Learned State counsel vehemently controverted th e

submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that the

Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab, vide

notification dated 17.08.2016, constituted a State-Level Direct

Recruitment Board for Intelligence Officers in the Intelligence Wing of

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 9

Punjab Police. Pursuant thereto, the Chairman of the Board/Director

General of Police, Punjab, issued Standing Order No.10/2016 prescribing

qualifications, procedure, and criteria for direct recruitment, strictly in

accordance with the Punjab Police Service Rules, 2015, as amended in

2016. The recruitment process was conducted with complete

transparency, and no allegation of mala fides has been levelled by the

petitioners. During document verification, candidates were afforded an

opportunity to appeal against the decision of the Board for disqualifying

them on account of non-fulfilling the required minimum educational

qualifications or non submission of valid caste/category certificates for

claiming reservation.

11. It is further submitted that, given the technical nature of

certificate verification, a Committee of Experts was also constituted with

the approval of the Director General of Police, Punjab, vide order dated

18.11.2016. The Committee comprised experts from diverse fields,

including representatives of various Universities, to ensure a reasoned and

informed decision by the Board. The final decision on the appeals

submitted by the candidates was taken with the help and guidance of this

Committee of Experts.

12. Learned State counsel lays much emphasis on the applicable

Rules to submit that only ‘O’ Level Certificate holder is eligible, as the

Rules do not provide for an ‘equivalent certificate’ but only provide for

the same certificate from an ‘equivalent institution’ to the DOEACC or

National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology or its

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 10

equivalent recognized by the Government of India or any State

Government. It is contended that the Recruitment Board and Committee

of Experts were not required to determine equivalence of degrees or

compare syllabi of various courses offered by private or government

institutes to examine whether the submitted certificates were equivalent to

the required minimum educational qualifications. All certificates were

required to be issued by a recognized authority.

13. Finally, it is asserted that the petitioners possess degrees of

B.Sc. (General) and not B.Sc. (Computer Science). Merely having

Computer Science as one of the subjects does not satisfy Clause (b) of the

prescribed educational qualifications and does not render the petitioners

eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE

INTERVENOR

14. Learned senior counsel for the intervenor submits that the

controversy is no longer res integra. Similarly situated candidates had

earlier approached this Court by filing CWP-13-2017 seeking identical

relief. However, the said writ petition and connected matters were

dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 06.06.2019, and the

dismissal order was affirmed in LPA-1453-2019 vide order dated

17.09.2019. The issue, therefore, stands conclusively settled and cannot

be raked up again before this Court.

REASONS FOR DISMISSING THESE WRIT PETITIONS

15. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 11

counsel for the contesting litigants and also made a studied survey of the

record.

16. To the considered mind of this Court, the petitioners’

contention that possession of a B.Sc. degree with Computer Science as a

subject constitutes a higher qualification than the ‘O’ Level Certificate of

Information Technology from the DOEACC, as required for the

advertised posts, lacks merit. The reason for drawing this inference stems

from the fact that an identical contention was raised by similarly situated

candidates in CWP-13-2017 and was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench

vide order dated 06.06.2019, which has attained finality upon dismissal of

LPA-1453-2019 on 17.09.2019. The relevant portion of the order dated

06.06.2019 is extracted hereunder:-

“Stand of the State is that to become eligible for

appointment of Intelligence Assistant, a candidate should be a

graduate from a recognized University or Institution and should

also possess an 'O' Level Certificate of Information Technology

from Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer

Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics and

Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution

recognized by Government of India or any State Government. As

per the stand of the State, the petitions are liable to be dismissed

as petitioners do not possess the necessary qualifications as per

the advertisement.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

At the outset it is necessary to refer to the advertisement in

question. Clause 5 (c) thereof laid down the questions. Same

reads as under:-

XX XX XX

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 12

As per their own stand, petitioners do not possess the

aforesaid qualification. On the other hand, they claim

equivalence on the basis of qualifications possessed by them.

Such equivalence is not prescribed anywhere. Petitioners claim it

on the basis of parameters conceived by themselves. The selection

process was conducted by a State level Direct Recruitment Board

comprising senior officers, who considered the qualification as

per the advertisement. The requirement as per the advertisement

was to possess an 'O' Level Certificate of Information Technology

from the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer

Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics and

Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution

recognized by the Government of India or any State Government.

The Selection Board found that qualification possessed by

the petitioners was not equivalent to that prescribed in the

advertisement. Counsel for the petitioners have tried to convince

this court about the equivalence of qualification. However, the

argument does not cut ice. The qualification is clearly prescribed

in the advertisement. Admittedly petitioners do not possess the

same. There is nothing to show that qualification possessed by the

petitioners including the 'O' Level Certificate, if any, has been

obtained from an institution equivalent to DOEACC or NIELIT,

recognized as such by Government of India or any State

Government. The emphasis in the advertisement is on “equivalent

institution” recognized by Government of India or any State

Government. None of the petitioners claim to have qualification

from such “equivalent institution”.”

17. In any event, the issue is not of equivalence of degrees, but

of equivalence of institution to the DOEACC or National Institute of

Electronics and Information Technology or its equivalent recognized by

the Government of India or any State Government. Therefore, the

contention (supra) pales into insignificance. This Court has no reason to

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 13

take a divergent view from that taken by the Co-ordinate Bench and LPA

Bench.

18. The next issue warranting adjudication is whether the

petitioners, on accounts of their possessing degrees of B.Sc. (General)

with Computer Science as a subject, are eligible for appointment to the

advertised posts.

19. A duly constituted Committee of Experts, includi ng

University representatives, unequivocally opined that degree of B.Sc.

(General) with Computer Science as one of the subjects cannot be treated

as equivalent to B.Sc. (Computer Science). The equivalence of the

prescribed qualification with other qualifications is to be considered by

the State, being the recruitment authority. Equivalence being a technical

academic matter cannot be implied or assumed. Moreover, judicial review

can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide

the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given

qualification. This position stands fortified by the verdict of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in “Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala and Others”, (2024) 8

SCC 309. The relevant paragraphs of the said verdict are extracted

hereunder:-

“13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the post

advertised vide notification dated 30

th

April, 2008 was a degree in

B.Sc(Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold such a

degree. It is the case of the appellant that B.Sc (Polymer

Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as

equivalent to a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). However, the said

argument does not hold water and is misconceived.

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 14

14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v.

Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404, held that

judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed

qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed

qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the

equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be

determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review.

Whether a particular qualification should or should not be

regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting

authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied)

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

2023 SCC OnLine SC 343, a three Judge Bench of this Court,

while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru

Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another,

(2009) 1 SCC 610, held that equivalence is a technical academic

matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the

academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be

by specific order or resolution, duly published.

16. The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the

University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10

th

October,

2011 verifying that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) course of the said

University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc(Chemistry)

course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this

Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV(supra). In view of the

settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, we

are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for

the post advertised vide notification dated 30

th

April, 2008.”

20. It has not been the case of the petitioners that the respondents

have arbitrarily or with mala fide intent taken a decision to declare them

disqualified, rather it is apparent from a perusal of paper-books of these

writ petitions that a uniform yardstick has been made applicable to all the

candidates, who participated in the selection process. Furthermore, the

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 15

LPA Bench of this Court has, while adjudicating LPA-1453-2019, already

gone into this aspect and rejected a similar argument. In LPA, it was the

contention of the appellants that they possess B.Sc. with Computer as a

subject from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, and the University

has declared that B.Sc. degree with elective subjects of Computer

Science, Quantitative Technique passed from the said University be

recognized as equivalent with B.Sc. (Computer Science) degree.

However, the said submission was rejected by the LPA Bench, as is

apparent from the hereinafter extracted portion of the order dated

17.09.2019.

“Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends

that appellant No.1 in LPA-1453-2019 possesses B.Sc. Degree

with computer as a subject from Guru Nanak Dev University,

Amritsar, and the University has declared that B.Sc degree with

elective subjects of Computer Science, Quantitative Technique

passed from this University be recognized as equivalent with

B.Sc. (Computer Science) degree.....…

X X X X X

We are afraid, the reliance placed upon the Full Bench

judgment is totally mis-founded. The matter came up for

consideration before the Full Bench on account of two conflicting

Division Bench judgments in respect of the question – Whether

the candidates who have obtained the qualification of B.P.Ed.

could be considered eligible for the purpose of appointment as

Physical Training Instructor (PTI) for which the qualification

prescribed is Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.)? On

account of diversion of opinion of two Division Benches on the

aforesaid question, reference was made to a Full Bench and,

considering the same, it was held that candidates possessing

higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 16

selection. It was observed, in the operative part, as under:-

27. From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed

judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing higher

qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from

consideration for selection. It is a different matter that

he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for

higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at

par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed

qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate having

better and higher qualification in the same line and

discipline would definitely result in breach of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India." (emphasis supplied)

Thus, it would be seen that the words “in the same line and

discipline” are the determining factors.

Admittedly, in the case in hand the appellants-petitioners

cannot be held to be possessing better and higher qualification in

the same line and discipline, rather they are claiming equivalence

on the basis of parameters conceived by themselves. It cannot be

disputed that the equivalence is to be considered and granted by

the respondent-authorities and cannot be claimed by the

appellants-petitioners themselves as a matter of right. It is to be

taken note of that selection process was conducted by a State level

Direct Recruitment Board comprising senior officers, who

considered the qualification as per the advertisement and, having

found that the appellants-petitioners do not possess either the

prescribed qualification or higher qualification in the same

stream and the qualification they possess cannot be equated with

the prescribed qualification, rejected their candidature. ‘O’ Level

Certificate of Information Technology from the Department of

Electronics Accreditation of Computer Course (DOEACC) or

National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology

(NIELIT) is a specialised course in the field of computer

education and, definitely, it cannot be held equivalent to computer

science studied as a general subject from any institute or

university. Whether the two can be considered equivalent or the

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 17

latter qualification as higher is no longer res integra and stands

settled by a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Yogesh Kumar vs. Government of NCT, (2003) 3 SCC 548. In

the said case, the question for consideration before the Hon’ble

Apex Court was – Whether B.Ed. was higher qualification than

Trained Teacher’s Certificate (TTC)? The Hon’ble Apex Court,

after considering the issue, answered the same as under:-

“10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced

by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher

qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates

should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On

behalf of the applicants, it is pointed out before us that

Trained Teacher’s Certificate is given to teachers specially

trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas

for B.Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students

of classes above primary. B.Ed. degree holders, therefore,

cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification

suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools.

Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment

should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or

B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We

find sufficient logic and justification in the State

prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers

as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can

also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be

considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot

consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies

advertised, as eligible.”

In the light of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex

Court, even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted, as

suggested by learned counsel for the appellants, that the

qualification held by the appellants is higher than the prescribed

qualification, even then since under the recruitment policy the

respondent-department found it fit to prescribe a particular

qualification obtained from a specific institution or equivalent

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 18

institution recognized by Government of India or by any State

Government, the appellants cannot be held eligible for the

vacancies advertised with prescribed qualification.”

21. Consequently, this Court does not find any material or reason

to take a divergent view from that taken by the LPA Bench, rather its

decision is binding on this Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation

in holding that the petitioners, merely on accounts of their possessing

degrees of B.Sc. (General) with Computer Science as a subject, are not

eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.

22. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the following

directions were issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on

08.08.2022:-

“One of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the petitioners, who had applied for the post of

Intelligence Officer in the rank of Sub Inspector and Intelligence

Assistant in the rank of Constable, got degrees in B.Sc, Computer

Science which degrees were not accepted. It is submitted that

though the petitioners herein had studied Computer Science and

some of the petitioners had enrolled in the College for a degree in

B.Sc (Computer Science), their candidature was rejected with the

remarks that their degrees did not belong to B. Sc in computer

sciences.

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the

candidature of the petitioners herein and others, was rejected

because their degrees were not in computer science as those were

in other ancillary subjects, whereas the persons who have been

appointed have their degrees in computer science with advance

study of their subject.

This court would like to peruse the record of those persons

who have been given appointment vis a vis their educational

qualification as against the petitioners herein who stand rejected.

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 19

It would then be clarified whether the rejection of the petitioners

herein is justified.

Let the record pertaining to the candidates who stand

selected having studied from Punjab Technical University,

Jalandhar, with the same qualifications/ subjects as stated by the

petitioners herein, be placed on record well before the adjourned

date........”

23. In compliance with the directions (supra), an additional

affidavit dated 22.11.2022 of Mr. Charanjit Singh, I.P.S., Assistant

Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Intelligence, Punjab, was filed

before this Court. It was disclosed in the affidavit that 96 candidates had

joined as Sub-Inspector, out of whom, 09 candidates had resigned and 02

candidates had died. In this way, 85 candidates had consumed the post of

Sub-Inspector. The educational certificates of these selected candidates

were also annexed with the affidavit to substantiate that only candidates

possessing the essential educational qualifications were selected and no

relaxation whatsoever was given. Learned counsel for the petitioners have

also remained unable to point out any anomaly in the educational

certificates of the selected candidates.

24. The final issue requiring adjudication emanates from

issuance of fresh/corrected degrees of B.Sc. (Computer Science) to 2/3

petitioners by the University(ies) concerned, which according to those

petitioners makes them eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.

There is no wrangle to the fact that these fresh/corrected degrees were

issued only during pendency of these writ petitions, and after completion

of the entire selection process. Therefore, the respondents cannot be

CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 20

faulted for rejecting petitioners’ candidature on the basis of qualifications

held by them at the relevant time. The concluded selection process of

2016–2017 cannot be reopened, particularly in the absence of any fault on

the part of the respondents.

FINAL ORDER

25. In summa, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions,

and the same are accordingly dismissed.

26. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

27. A photocopy of this order be placed on file of e ach

connected case.

(KULDEEP TIWARI)

January 08, 2026 JUDGE

devinder

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No