Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 January, 2026
CWP-27134-2025
2025 1
205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-27134-2025
Date of Decision: 09.01.2026
.01.2026
Lakhvinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and
a others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. Amrinder Pratap Singh,, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh,, Advocate
for the respondent No.5.
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P P-17)
17) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Moga whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Beldar was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend contendss that the petitioner applied for the post of Beldar with the respondent respondent-Corporation Corporation in pursuance of the relevant advertisement (Annexure P P-9). The said advertisement also laid down the eligibility criteria which included clearing middle school level 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:43 ::: CWP-27134-2025 2025 2 Punjabi bi language examination. However, the petitioner had cleared the examination for Punjabi language both at matriculation and senior secondary level, as discernible from the certificates issued by the Punjab School Education Board (Annexures P-2 P and P-3, 3, res respectively). Thereafter, he also successfully completed one year course conducted by the Department of Fruit Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, as also discernible from the certificate dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure P P-4). In spite of being eligible for appointment as Beldar, the respondent respondent-Corporation Corporation rejected his claim vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P P-17) stating that the petitioner failed to annex his 8th class certificate with his application. The petitioner clearly possesses ses higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed by the advertisement (Annexure P P-9).
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the respondent-Corporation respondent Corporation in its capacity as the employer, is best qualified to lay down the eligibility criteria for recruitment. The petitioner has not provided the requisite certificate for 8th class certificate with Punjabi as one of the elective subjects, subjects, which was specifically sought in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure P-9).
P Further, the merit list was prepared only on the basis of these certificates submitted by the candidates. Therefore, he was justly not considered for appointment. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manpreet Manpree Shrivastava vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.25978 of 2021 decided on 16.02.2022 and the Chhatisgarh High Court in Pankaj Kumar Pankaj and others vs. State Bank of India and others decided on 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:44 ::: CWP-27134-2025 2025 3 16.12.2020. However, he could ould not controve controvert the fact that the petitioner has in fact qualified Punjabi language examinations conducted by the Punjab State Education Board for both 10th class and 12th class,, which is higher than the minimum prescribed benchmark.
benchmark
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ord with their able assistance, it transpires that the advertisement P prescribes 8th class level qualification in Punjabi language as (Annexure P-9) the minimum prescribed benchmark. The relevant eligibility criteria is reproduced below:
"A) xxx xxx xxx
8) As per the notification dated 04.11.2020, No.
G.S.R.75/const/Art.309/Amd(7)2022 issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, the amendment made in Group D in the service rules, 1963 is as under:
Group-D under:-
Provided that no person shall be be appointed any post in any service by direct appointment unless he has passed a qualifying test of Punjabi language equivalent to middle class with at least fifty percent marks to be conduct by the respective recruit agencies in addition to competitive examination.
ex The test of Punjabi language shall be a mandatory qualifying test and failure to secure a minimum of fifty percent marks in Punjabi language will disqualify the candidate for being considered in the final merit list of candidates to be selected irrespective of the scores or marks in other papers of the respective exam.
xxx xxx xxx C) Educational qualification of the candidate:
candidate:-
1) Under the Punjab Municipal employee (4) Service Rules, 1986, for recruitment to the post of Beldar, minimum educational qualification of middle class is necessary.
3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:44 ::: CWP-27134-2025 2025 4
2) That in case, the candidate has not passed 8th Class the Punjabi as elective subject, he will have to pass Punjabi subject and he should get minimum 50% marks."
5. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed the Punjabi language examination with 52% marks in the subject in 10th class and 74.6% marks in 12th class, as highlighted by the certificates issued by the Punjab School Education Board (Annexures P-2 P and P-3, 3, respectively). Thus, there is no justification in the respondent-Corporation respondent Corporation rejecting the claim of the petitioner merely for want of 8th class certificate. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent No.5 could not controvert the fact that candidature cannot be rejected for possessing qualifications qualifications higher than those prescribed. Furthermore, a perusal of the advertisement (Annexure P P-9)
9) makes it clear that the intention is to ensure that those appointed to the post of Beladar possess an effective understanding of the Punjabi language, which, undeniably, the petitioner does.
6. A two-Judge bench of the he Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 595 has conclusively held that possessing higher qualification in a subject than prescribed in the relevant advertisement does not render a candidate ineligible for consideration. S Speaking peaking through Justice Sandeep Mehta, the following was held:
"32. Reading the language of the statutory provision in a literal sense and applying the the golden rule of interpretation, this is the only logical and permissible interpretation. Hence, we have no hesitation in concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a degree course in "Chemistry" subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he mu must st possess a master's degree in that subject. However, if a candidate has 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:44 ::: CWP-27134-2025 2025 5 taken college education in the subjects of food technology; dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology; agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, tthen hen such a candidate would be qualified for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post post-graduation graduation or doctorate degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having maste master's r's or a doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
unconstitutional."
7. Further, a Full Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others ot 2010(3) SCT 703, speaking through Justice Permod Kohli, opined as follows in this regard:
regard "25. Arguing on the same line Mr. Khosla has strenuously argued that the persons possessing any qualification other than C.P.Ed are not eligible. With a view to appreciate the applicability of the aforesaid judgment, it is deemed appropriate to examine the rule position as prescribed under 1955 rules for the post of P.T.I. From the rule noticed in earlier part of this judgment, it appears that educational qualification like matric or 10+2 is not prescribed therein. Though in the advertisement, Senior Second Secondary ary Certificate or Intermediate or its equivalent basic qualification is an essential component for the post. Similarly, for professional qualifications, certificate in Physical Education C.P.Ed of a duration of not less than two years or its equivalent is prescribed. However, by virtue of the corrigendum dated 24.10.2006, even a candidate with one year duration course of C.P.Ed is made eligible for recruitment in question. Similarly, in the rule, no equivalent qualification of C.P.Ed is referred to, though in the advertisement C.P.Ed or its equivalent qualification is also recognised as professional qualification. It cannot be ignored that the qualification prescribed under the rule and the advertisement is always the minimum qualification. It is not for us 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:44 ::: CWP-27134-2025 2025 6 to identify any course which can be termed as equivalent to C.P.Ed course. At the same time, the curriculum of B.P.Ed and other higher courses, if include almost all the components of curriculum of C.P.Ed should not be construed to be a totally different and distinct qualification. In the case of Multan (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that D.P.Ed, B.P.Edc and M.P.Ed are higher qualifications in the same line. From the curriculum of courses like C.P.Ed, B.P.Ed, D.P.Ed, it is fou found nd that almost all components of C.P.Ed course of one year or two years are taught in D.P.Ed course in almost all the Universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana. In sum and substance, the controversy revolves around the curriculum of two types of courses, courses, one prescribed in the advertisement i.e. C.P.Ed and higher courses acquired by the petitioners. On facts, we are of the considered opinion that the curriculum of B.P.Ed, B.P.E, D.P.Ed includes the curriculum prescribed for C.P.Ed in major universitie universitiess in the States of Punjab and Haryana. Higher qualifications being in the same subject and line cannot be ignored and candidates possessing higher qualification cannot be denied consideration for selection.
26. The distinction sought to be created to deny eligibility is arbitrary and illusory. It goes without saying that the higher qualification provides better knowledge, better sense and in sight and equip the person with better understanding of the issues and problems. It cannot be a "bane" but has to be a "boon".. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, 2000(2) S.C.T. 10 :
(2000) 2 SCC 606 had the occasion to consider whether the higher qualification than 8th standard prescribed for the post of Peon renders a candidate ineligible. Examining the issue, it is observed as under :
"21.A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than an prescribed cannot be rational.
We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:44 ::: CWP-27134-2025 2025 7 who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.
application."
(emphasis added)
8. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P P-17)
17) is hereby quashed and set aside. The competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in aforesaid terms within 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that the petitioner be granted the same deemed date of appointment as other successful candidates. However, it is made clear that he shall be entitled to the pay only from the actual date of joining. Lastly Lastly, the seniority shall be computed in accordance with the merit list.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 09.01.2026 PC Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No 7 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:44 :::