Sunil Kumar v. Punjab State

Judgment

1. This judgment shall dispose of d writ ose of all the above mentioned writ petitions as t s as they arise from a similar factu factual matrix and pose a common question of l n of law. However, for the sake of b e of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-10347 0347-2021.

2. The present petition has been of the been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution tution of India seeking issuance of a w of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the ng the advertisement no.CRA-11/202 1/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued b sued by the respondent-PSTCL to the on the to the extent of infringement upon the right of the p f the petitioners to apply and be consid considered for recruitment to the post of Assistant L istant Lineman (ALM) and Assistant SSA), istant Sub-Station Attendant (ASSA), PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 respectively. ively. A further prayer is made for is ure of for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to the resp it the e respondent-PSTCL to permit the petitioners h ers holding a degree or diploma in nd be a in engineering to apply and be considered fo osts. ered for recruitment to the said posts. FACTUAL B

UAL BACKGROUND

3. An advertisement bearing no.C .2021 g no.CRA-11/2021 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P ure P-1) was issued by respondent o 350 ndent-PSTCL for recruitment to 350 posts of Assi f Assistant Lineman (ALM) and 150 tation d 150 posts of Assistant Sub-Station Attendant (A ant (ASSA) The essential eligibility q herein ility qualifications prescribed therein included a F d a Full Time regular ITI certificat Trade rtificate in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a recog recognised institution. The petitioners e said itioners attempted to apply to the said posts online nline but were unsuccessful since th em to nce the portal did not allow them to enter degree/ egree/diploma in Engineering as a qu ng the s a qualification without selecting the option for 02 for 02-year ITI certificate. Hence, the e, the present writ petition. CONTENTI ENTIONS

4. Learned Senior counsel for the at the or the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioners ca ers cannot be excluded from the zone essing e zone of consideration for possessing a higher qual qualification in the same field. It is s n of a . It is settled law that prescription of a minimum qu um qualification cannot have the ef didate the effect of excluding a candidate possessing a sing a higher qualification. Reliance in on the ance in this regard was placed on the judgments re nts rendered by the Hon’ble Supre preme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahm SCC Ahmad and others (2019) 2 SCC 404, Jyoti K.K. and others vs. Kerala Pu Public Service Commission and others (2010 2010) 15 SCC 596 and a Full Bench Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 vs. State of P of Punjab and others 2010(3) SC ) SCT 703. Learned Senior counsel also referred ferred to the judgment rendered by a d by a Coordinate Bench in Jagdish Prasad and nd another vs. Uttari Haryana Bijl Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others in CWP-147 14779-2007 decided on 19.08.2009 s of a 8.2009 wherein appointment as of a candidate as ate as ALM was challenged on the sed a on the ground that he possessed a diploma in E a in Electrical Engineering instead of n of a ad of the prescribed qualification of a two-year voc ar vocational course or ITI certificat tification in the Electrician/Wireman trade. It was It was held therein that higher quali ctrical r qualification (diploma in Electrical Engineering) ering) presupposes the acquisition o (ITI ition of the lower qualification (ITI certificate), w ate), which was affirmed by the Div

010. e Division Bench in LPA-121-2010 Since the pet the petitioner hold a higher qualificati ork as lification in the same line of work as compared to red to the prescribed ITI certification, t one of ation, their exclusion from the zone of consideration eration is illegal, arbitrary and violativ rticles iolative of their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of 16 of the Constitution of India. Reli recent a. Reliance is also placed on a recent judgments re nts rendered by the Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and o nd others vs. The State of Jharkha rkhand and others in Civil Appeal No.10389 of 9 of 2024 decided on 20.03.2025 f this 25 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gya Gyanender Rawal and others vs. S 793- vs. State of Haryana in CWP-2793 2022 decided ecided on 08.07.2025.

5. Per contra, learned Senior enior counsel for the respondent contended th ded that it is settled law that it is the yer to is the prerogative of the employer to lay down an wn an eligibility criterion as it alone y of a alone can best judge suitability of a candidate fo ate for the advertised role. The a 1) he advertisement (Annexure P-1) provides an u es an unambiguous eligibility criterio o not riterion, which the petitioners do not PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 satisfy. More . Moreover, nowhere in the said adver tioned advertisement has it been mentioned that the equiv equivalent of ITI certification or a qu or a qualification higher than the same would also be also be considered for appointment. Th ent. Therefore, since no right to claim consideration eration is vested in the petitioners e the tioners, they cannot challenge the eligibility cri lity criteria for want of locus standi, in , in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of P SCT of Punjab vs. Anita 2014(4) SCT 699 and Dis Distt.Collector and Chairman V n Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential S tial School Society) and another Devi her vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SC 3 SCC 655. Moreover, the Hon’ ’ble Supreme Court in Official Liquidator vs tor vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1 higher has held that possessing a higher qualification cation than the one prescribed need ted as need not necessarily be treated as fulfilling the the latter.

6. Further, this Court in Som Du Dutt vs. State of Haryana and others in CW CWP-2231-1983 decide on 25.11. higher 25.11.1983 had opined that a higher qualification cation may not make a candidate bette post. better suited to the needs of the post. As such, sin h, since the prerequisites are clearl clearly stated in the advertisement (supra), the , the respondent-PSTCL being the strict g the employer can insist on strict adherence to nce to the same. Learned Senior coun on the r counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in nt in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) nce of pra) to submit that in the absence of a Rule that that explicitly that acquisition of on of a higher qualification would presuppose pose acquisition of a lower qualificat effect alification, an inference to this effect cannot be ma be made. Further still, the petitioners h ires of oners have not challenged the vires of the advertisem ertisement (supra) on the ground of om ing to omission of a clause pertaining to grant of equi f equivalence to higher qualifications e that cations which begs the inference that PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 they are sati re satisfied with the contents of sam an be of same. As such, no relief can be granted to the to them in terms of the judgment ren rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pra Prakash Chand Meena vs. State o 484 te of Rajasthan (2015) 8 SCC 484 and a Divisio ivision Bench of this Court in Dhani hani Ram vs. State of Haryana and others 2005 ( 005 (1) SCT 571. OBSERVAT RVATION AND ANALYSIS

7. Having heard learned counsel fo nsel for the parties and after perusing the record of ord of the case, it transpires that the re ed an respondent-PSPCL had issued an advertisemen sement dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure ns for exure P-1) inviting applications for recruitment t ment to the posts of ALM and AS ibility nd ASSA. The following eligibility criteria were were laid down in this regard: “1.0 The pa e pay scale and details of these post posts are given below: Sr. No. POST POS ODE COD Name of Post (No. of No. of Posts Required Qualifications and Qua Experience Pay Scale 2 23 23 Assistant Lineman (A.L.M.) 350 No. 3 63 63 Assistant Sub Station Attendant (ASSA) 150 No. a Punjab triculation matricu uivalent level and equival ll Time regular ITI in Full Ti Electri ectrician/Wireman Trade ognized Institution. recogn Punjab triculation matricu level and uivalent equival ll Time regular ITI in Full Ti ectrician/Wireman Electri Trade ognized Institution. recogn a xxx”

8. The advertisement (Annexure P idates ure P-1) clearly states that candidates are required uired to have a qualified a full tim de of ull time ITI course in the trade of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 Electrician/W cian/Wireman from a recognised ins of the ed institution. The grievance of the petitioners is ers is limited their exclusion on th essing on the ground of them possessing higher qualif qualifications than that prescribed i.e in the ed i.e. diploma/degree-holders in the field of Elect f Electrical Engineering.  Equiva quivalence of qualifications

9. The nomenclature of the courses the c in question . ITI i.e. ITI certification ation in the trade of Electrician/Wi ree in ian/Wireman and diploma/degree in Electrical En cal Engineering begs the inference t cribed ence that their respective prescribed syllabi must must be distinct. In the absence of an e of any Service Rule or clause in the advertisemen sement (supra) granting equivalence to ence to higher qualifications, it cannot be prima fac a facie inferred that the higher qua uips a er qualification necessarily equips a candidate wit ate with the knowledge a vocation-ori iding. oriented course aims at providing. A two-Judge Judge bench of the Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court in Devender Bhaskar and others v ers vs. State of Haryana and other others 2022 (1) SCT51, has opined that the Cour e Courts cannot expand the ambit of th s, nor it of the prescribed qualifications, nor can they de ey decide on matters pertaining ining to equivalence of academic qualifications cations. Speaking through Justice S. A g was e S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was observed:

1. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & O “21. I 975) 3 SCC 76, it was held that the q (1975) educational qualifications is a tech of educ sessment and evaluation of the rel assessm actical attainments of such qualific practic the Gov commendation of an expert body, recomm levant data and unaided by techni relevan rpose of determining equivalence, purpos cision of the Government unless decisio elevant considerations or actuated irrelev Ors & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors the question regarding equivalence technical question based on proper e relevant academic standards and alifications. It was further held that Government d of dy, then the Court , uninformed of chnical insights necessary for the nce, would not lightly disturb the s or ess it is based on extraneous or ted mala fides or is irrational and the decision of is based on PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 perver rverse or manifestly wrong.

22. In Others the cou variou 23. In 252 thi admiss are ma thus: "13. F prescri recruit by the particu accepte author . In J. Ranga Swamy v. Governm thers, (1990) 1 SCC 288 this Co court to consider the relevance o ernment of Andhra Pradesh and Court held that it is not for ce of qualification prescribed for rious posts. . In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v this Court held that the prescrib mission to a course or for recruitm e matters to be considered by the ap SCC rs. v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC cribed eligibility qualification fo ruitment to or promotion in service e appropriate authority. It was held From the ratio of the decisions n escribed eligibility qualification for cruitment to or promotion in servic the appropriate authority. It is not rticular educational qualification cepted as equivalent to the qua thority." ons noted above, it is clear that the t the n for admission to a course or for ervice are matters to be considered not for courts to decide whether a er a ation should or should not be qualification prescribed by the

24. In (2009) technic decisio should specifi to the the Co that th . In Guru Nanak Dev University v. 009) 1 SCC 610 this Court has re chnical academic matter. It canno cision of the academic body of the un ould be by a specific order or reso ecifically with whether a distance e the degree of MA (English) of th Court held that no material had b at the distance education course had ty v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., nr., s reiterated that equivalence is a is a Any nnot be implied or assumed. Any he university relating to equivalence resolution, duly published. Dealing ce education course was equivalent f the appellant university therein, rein, ad been produced before it to show had been recognized as such.

25. In Ors. (2 entitled taking for e qualifi qualifi the pr prescri Equiva author (e . In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors rs. (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held th titled to prescribe qualifications as king into consideration the nature o r efficient discharge of dutie alifications, course content leading alifications, etc. Judicial review ca e prescribed qualifications nor d escribed qualifications with any uivalence of qualification is a mat thority, to determine.” (emphasis added) Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & d & r, is ld that the State, as an employer, is s as a condition of eligibility, after re of the job, the aptitude required uties, functionality of various ing up to the acquisition of various w can neither expand the ambit of it of or decide the equivalence of the tion. any other given qualification. matter for the State, as recruiting PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 Further, a two-Judge bench of the Hon Further e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganpath Singh Ganga angaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulbarga 676, arga University (2014) 3 SCC 676 wherein spea n speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad Prasad, the following was observed: “21. invited post of degree in the postgra post o relevan `releva the Bo in Ma substan reason This, appoin 22. taught Single conten course Comm appoin a situa and su much t subject in tho Applic the ad ambigu Ganpa our op Lectur posses appoin ...As is evident from the a vited for filling up various posts in st of Lecturer in MCA. The advert gree in the `relevant subject'. The re the context of appointment to stgraduate degree in MCA. In our st of Lecturer, Masters' degree in levant subject. The advertisement elevant subject' and not `appropriat e Board of appointment has not st Mathematics is the relevant subj bstance it is equivalent to a post-gr ason that Mathematics is one of is, in our opinion, was beyond pointment. he advertisement, applications were s in different subjects including the vertisement requires post-graduate e relevant subject would, therefore, fore, to the post of Lecturer, mean our opinion, for appointment to the e in the Mathematics is not the e in ent requires Masters' degree in ase, priate subject'. In the present case, ot stated that post-graduate degree subject for MCA but in sum and graduate degree in MCA for the of the subjects taught in MCA. CA. nd the power of the Board of It shall not make any dif ught in the Masters' of Computer A ngle Judge, in our opinion, gra ntention of Ganpat and the Uni uld mean `such of those subjects urse'. If Mathematics is taught mmerce, a Masters' degree in Comm pointment in Mathematics or for tha situation in which Masters' degree i d such a degree may be considere ch to say that a candidate having po bjects taught in MCA would make th those subjects as holder of M plication and, therefore, eligible for e advertisement is clear and expl biguity and, hence, it has to be give npat did not have a Masters' degr r opinion, he was not entitled to be cturer in MCA. We are aghast t ssessing Masters' degree in MCA pointment had chosen an unquali y difference even if Mathematics is cs is er Application course. The learned gravely erred in upholding the ject' University that `relevant subject' CA jects as are offered in the MCA ht in a post-graduate course in e in t for ommerce would not be relevant for r that matter in MCA. There may be y be ree in MCA is differently christened dered relevant but it would be too g postgraduate degree in any of the f the ke the holders of a Masters' degree f Masters' degree in Computer e for appointment. The language of e of explicit and does not admit any e given effect to. Since the appellant degree in Computer Application, in t as o be considered for appointment as st to see that when a candidate MCA is available, the Board of ualified and ineligible person for PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 appoin illegal acting cannot Court an unq recomm High C appoin pointment in that subject. Its rec egal and invalid. Natural corollary ting on such recommendation and nnot be allowed to do so and that t urt was right in setting aside his unqualified person cannot be ap commendee. We are of the opinion gh Court was right in holding tha pointment of Lecturer in Masters' of fore, recommendations are, therefore, llary thereof is that the University and appointing Ganpat as Lecturer hat the Division Bench of the High e his appointment. In our opinion, ion, appointed, whoever may be the nion that the Division Bench of the that Ganpat was not eligible for s' of Computer Application.” dded) (emphasis added)

10. Additionally, it is settled law th ys the law that the employer is always the best judge to dge to assess suitability of a candidate riteria didate and lay down eligibility criteria for a particul articular post. As such, when the adve e advertisement qua the same is clear and within th thin the legal framework, this Court c of the ourt cannot step into the shoes of the employer or er or a domain expert and expand the nd the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 o 226 of the Constitution of India to n ITI dia to declare equivalence of an ITI certificate ate in the trade of Electrician/Wir es in an/Wireman to diplomas/degrees in Engineering. ering. Reliance in this regard can al can also be placed on the judgment rendered by by a two-Judge bench of the rt in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharastra stra Public Service Commission thr n through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram War Warade and others (2019) 6 SCC ustice SCC 362, speaking through Justice Navin Sinha, Sinha, has made the following observa bservations in this regard: “10. T employ desirab employ must p of wor

0. The essential qualifications for a ployer to decide. The employer sirable qualifications, including an ployer who is best suited to decide ust possess according to the needs o work. The court cannot lay down uch less can it delve into the is r the or appointment to a post are for the yer may prescribe additional or l or g any grant of preference. It is the ecide the requirements a candidate eds of the employer and the nature down the conditions of eligibility, ility, e issue with regard to desirable PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 qualifi interpr will al the ad or it is appoin accord review best fo contra alifications being at par with th terpretive re-writing of the advertise ll also fall outside the domain of jud e advertisement and the rules are dgment over the same. If there is an it is contrary to any rules or law th pointing authority after appropr cordance with law. In no case can th view, sit in the chair of the appoint st for the employer and interpret the ntrary to the plain language of the sa th the essential eligibility by an rtisement. Questions of equivalence e of f judicial review. If the language of are clear, the Court cannot sit in it in is an ambiguity in the advertisement aw the matter has to go back to the an the Court, in the garb of judicial at is ointing authority to decide what is t the conditions of the advertisement he same.” priate orders, to proceed

11. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of urt in nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (emphasis added) Md. Firoz M oz Mansuri and Ors vs. The State o tate of Bihar and Ors., 2026 INSC NSC 68, has reiter reiterated this approach and opined t stitute ined that the Courts cannot substitute its opinion nion for that of the employer. S Satish r. Speaking through Justice Satish Chandra Shar served: ra Sharma, the following was observed “56. T (supra a post conditi regard eligibil Questi review the cou

6. The Supreme Court in Maharash upra) reiterated that the essential qu post are for the employer to decide. nditions of eligibility, much less c gard to desirable qualifications be igibility by an interpretive re- uestion of equivalence will also fall view. If the language of the advertis e court cannot sit in judgment over rashtra Public Service Commission al qualifications for appointment to t to ide. The court cannot lay down the ss can it delve into the issue with s being at par with the essential ent. -writing of the advertisement. fall outside the domain of judicial lear, vertisement and the rules are clear, ver the same.

57. In Das, ( suitabi employ 59. Th employ qualifi recruit arbitra . In Chief Manager, Punjab Nation as, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Cour itability of qualifications lie within ployer. ational Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar ourt held that the relevancy and ithin the exclusive domain of the Therefore, it has been consistent ployer to determine and decide th judicial review alifications. The power of to examin cruitment limited rariness or violation of fundam stently recognised that it is for the y of de the relevancy and suitability of in matters of legislative competence, nce, amining ndamental rights, if any. Courts PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 rules, service rewrite equivalence cannot alifications, or substitute their ow qualifi ployer. The scope of judicial employ ployment does not extend to ques employ licy in prescribing the minimum policy blic post. Qualifications are prescr public d interests of an institution, an in and in case may be. Similarly, equivalen the ca atter which can be determined in ex matter view. Whether a particular qualific review garded as equivalent is a matter f regard thority, to determine. The ass author visability or utility of such prescr advisa rrant intervention of the Courts un warran rverse. However, at the same ti perver arbitra bitrarily in prescribing qualification (emphasis added) (empha es, determine ir own assessment for that of the ial review in matters of public questioning the State’s wisdom or um eligibility requirements for a or a escribed keeping in view the needs n industry or an establishment, as t, as ot a valence of a qualification is not a in exercise of the power of judicial alification should or should not be t be ter for the State, as the recruiting the expediency, ncy, escription of qualifications do not o be ts unless the same are shown to be e time, the employer cannot act tions for posts.” assessment of

12. In Chandra Shekhar Singh (s ed to h (supra), the matter pertained to recruitment t ment to the post of Food Safety Offic Officer, the qualifications for which were to be p o be prescribed by the Central Gov Food l Government in terms of the Food Safety and S and Standard Act, 2006. In the year year 2022, the Central Government had amended ended the Food Safety and Standard ity to andard Rules by granting validity to Bachelor’ s degree, Master’s degree and D eld of and Doctorate degree in the field of Food Techno echnology, Dairy Technology, Biotech iotechnology or Master’s degree in ree in Chemistry or stry or Degree in Medicine for the pos ra), he post of FSO. In Jyoti K.K. (supra), the applicabl licable Service Rules categorically p n of a ally provided for presupposition of a lower qualific ualification for a candidate who hold act, in hold higher qualifications. In fact, in Zahoor Ahm Ahmad Rather(supra), it was specif specifically noted that in the absence of a rule to t le to this effect, such an inference ca till, in nce cannot be drawn. Further still, in Gyanender der Rawal (supra), the Governme ued a ernment of Haryana had issued a PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 notification d ation dated 16.06.1979 according elig essing g eligibility to candidates possessing higher quali qualification in the same line as ne as prescribed in the minimum qualification. cation. The same was also reiterated vi The ated vide letter dated 25.03.2016. The said instruct structions were also adopted by t e. the by the employer therein i.e. the UHBVNL. H NL. However, no such instruction or t forth ion or notification has been put forth by learned Se ned Senior counsel for the petitioner i ioner in relation to the State of Punjab or the respon respondent-PSTCL. Thus, the relianc eliance placed on Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra upra), Jyoti K.K. (supra), Gyanend nender Rawal (supra) and Jagdish Prasad (supr supra) is unfounded.  Violat iolation of Articles 14 and 16 of the of the Constitution

13. It must be understood that Arti t Article 14 of the Constitution only proscribes un bes unreasonable classification. In ord tificial In order to establish that an artificial distinction is tion is constitutionally valid, it mus ligible t must be backed by an intelligible differentia i.e ntia i.e. have a clear criterion for gro ether, for grouping certain people together, and bear a rat ar a rational nexus to the object it seek ereof, it seeks to achieve. In absence thereof, such classific lassification would be in breach of the hrined of the promise of equality enshrined in Article 14 cle 14 of the Constitution. Reference rence in this regard can also be made to the judgm judgment rendered by a three-Judge Judge Bench in State of Punjab and others vs. T s. The Senior Vocational Staff M ff Masters Association and others 2017(4) SCT SCT 119, wherein speaking throu l, the through Justice R.K. Agrawal, the following wa ing was opined: “14) rule of Respon betwee 4) It is a cardinal principle of law t le of law and uphold the values and spondents herein alleged that cre tween the persons in the same cadr e by aw that government has to abide by and principles of the Constitution. tion. t creating an artificial distinction n of cadre would amount to violation of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 ticle 14 i.e. equality before law and stained. The doctrine of equality is a ving many dimensions. Articles 14 suring equality before the law an so disallow discrimination which uality, in matters of employment. rticle 14 forbids class legislation bu assification. When any rule of assification is assailed on the groun , its validity can be sustained if it s e classification was to be based on a stinguishes persons or things group t of the group, and the differen asonable nexus to object sought t atutory provision in question. In ot tional nexus between the basis of tended to be achieved by the Statut t be and hence, such an act cannot be y is a dynamic and evolving concept 14-18 of the Constitution, besides and equal protection of the laws, aws, ich lacks the object of achieving ent. It is well settled that though n but it does not forbid reasonable of statutory provision providing round that it is contrary to Article if it satisfies two tests, namely, that on an intelligible differentia which rouped together from the others left ferentia in question must have a ve a e or ght to be achieved by the rule or n other words, there must be some is of classification and the object phasis tatute or the Rule.” (emphasis Article sustain having assurin also d equalit Article classif classif 14, its the cla disting out of reason statuto rationa intende added) added)

14. Moreover, Article 16 of the Co uality the Constitution provides for equality of opportuni ortunity for all citizens in matters o tters of public employment, thereby becoming an ing an expression of the right to equali

4. On equality guaranteed by Article 14. On that note, if a te, if a State employer limits the zone ted by e zone of consideration motivated by whimsical or ical or irrelevant considerations, such ary in , such action be rendered arbitrary in nature and i and in violation of both Articles 1 tution. cles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reliance in ce in this regard can be placed on by a ed on the judgment rendered by a Constitution tution Bench of this Court in E.P. Ro . Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another ther 1974 AIR SC 555 wherein, P.N. erein, speaking through Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the ati, the following was opined: “82. T consid challen and ef

2. The last two grounds of challeng nsideration. Though we have for allenge as a distinct and separate g d effect merely an aspect of the sec r for llenge may be taken up together for formulated the third ground of ate ground, it is really in substance e second ground based on violation PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 of Arti that Ar in mat the Sta right b of opp up of Consti concep Article effect employ Article Now, w It is a it mus approa activis and di within view, arbitra republ is ther relatin Article fairnes must b similar irrelev Where motive and re consid that is arbitra vice in Article Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embo at Article 14 as there shall be equali matters relating to employment or a e State. Though enacted as a distinc ht because of its great importance a opportunity in public employment w of the new classless egalitari nstitution, Article 16 is only an ins ncept of equality enshrined in rticle 14 is the genus while Article fect to the doctrine of equality in ployment. The basic principle w rticles 14 and 16 is equality and inh w, what is the content and reach of is a founding faith, to use the words must not be subjected to a narr proach. We cannot countenance a bracing scope and meaning, for to tivist magnitude. Equality is a dyna d dimensions and it cannot be "c thin traditional and doctrinaire limi ew, equality is antithetic to arbitr bitrariness are sworn enemies; one public while the other, to the whi onarch. Where an act is arbitrary equal both according to political lo therefore violative of Article 14, lating to public employment, it is rticles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrarin irness and equality of treatment. ust be based on valid relevant pri milarly situate and it must not be relevant considerations because tha here the operative reason for State otive inducing from the antechambe d relevant but is extraneous and o nsiderations, it would amount to m at is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Ma bitrariness are different lethal radia ce in fact the matter comprehends th ticles 14 and 16.” mbodies the fundamental guarantee uality of opportunity for all citizens or appointment to any office under stinct and independent fundamental nce as a principle ensuring equality ent which is so vital to the building itarian society envisaged in the f the n instance of the application of the rds, in Article 14. In other words, ticle 16 is aspects. Article 16 gives y in all matters relating to public le which, therefore, informs both d inhibition against discrimination. tion. le ? h of this great equalising principle ? ords of Bose J., "a way of fife", and narrow pedantic or lexicographic all- ce any attempt to truncate its all or to do so would be to violate its e its dynamic concept with many aspects e "cribbed cabined and confined" ned" limits. From a positivistic point of t of rbitrariness. In fact equality and one belongs to the rule of law in a in a whim and caprice of an absolute it is itrary it is implicit in it that it is al logic and constitutional law and 14, and if it affects any matter 16. it is also violative of Article 16. rariness in State action an( ensure nt. They require that State action t principles applicable alike to all t be guided by any extraneous or s or lity. e that would be denial of equality. State action, as distinguished from mber of the mind, is not legitimate nd outside the area of permissible mala fide exercise of power and Mala fide exercise of power and adiations emanating from the same d by ds the former. Both are inhibited by PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 dded) (emphasis added) Further, a Constitution Bench of the H Further Ajay f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia vs. Kh s. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 981) 1 SCC 722, speaking through Justice P.N. B P.N. Bhagwati, made the following ob ing observations: “16. Airpor Report Article arbitra of clas Article judicia action equalit two c executi equalit there i or of Article State arbitra golden Consti ...This was again reiterated b rport Authority's case (1979) 3 SCR port. It must therefore now be tak ticle 14 strikes at is arbitrariness bitrary, must necessarily involve neg classification which is evolved by t ticle 14 nor is it the objective and en dicial formula for determining whet tion in question is arbitrary and uality. If the classification is not rea o conditions referred to above, ecutive action would plainly be a uality under Article 14 would be ere is arbitrariness in State action w of the executive or of an "a ticle 14 immediately springs into a ate action. In fact, the concept bitrariness pervades the entire co lden thread which runs through t nstitution.” ed by this Court In International SCR 1014) at p. 1042 (supra) of the f the taken to be well settled that what iness because an action that is t is e negation of equality. The doctrine e of by the Courts is not paraphrase of nd end of that Article. It is merely a ly a whether the legislative or executive l of nd therefore constituting denial of t reasonable and does not satisfy the ove, the impugned legislative or e of e arbitrary and the guarantee of be breached. Wherever therefore ion whether it be of the legislature "authority" under Article 12, 12, nto action and strikes down such non- cept of reasonableness and non e constitutional scheme and is a is a gh the whole of the fabric of the

15. Adverting to the matter at loyer, r at hand, as a State employer, dded) (emphasis added) empowered b ered by Article 309 of the Constitu CL is nstitution, the respondent-PSTCL is entitled to re to regulate recruitment and prescrib e. In rescribe conditions for the same. In furtherance ance thereof, the respondent-PSTCL PSTCL has specifically chosen to provide an el e an eligibility criterion that limits the its the zone of consideration to those who possess ossess ITI certificate in Electrical/Wir gnised al/Wireman Trade from a recognised PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 institution, th ion, thereby providing an intelligible of the lligible differentia. A perusal of the syllabus pr s prescribed by ITI course ITI e of trade of Electrician/W cian/Wireman1 indicates that the focus e and focus is on hands-on experience and inculcating p ting practical knowledge pertaining ment. ining to use of electrical equipment. On the other other hand, diploma/degree courses, a er and rses, although traditionally longer and more intensi ntensive, might not guarantee to pro e and to provide the same immediate and primarily pra ily practical skill set as a tradesma ndent- desman. Therefore, the respondent PSTCL is ju is justified in limiting its recruitme idates ruitment process to those candidates who possess ssess the skills that specifically aid in of an aid in performance of the duties of an ALM and AS nd ASSA may only be employed.

16. Notably, ITI certificate holder er of holders have a limited number of opportunities unities as compared to those who hold ield of o hold a diploma/degree in the field of Engineering. ering. Thus, the respondent-PSTCL State STCL cannot be faulted as a State employer by er by taking a policy decision favouri favouring the former, especially when diploma/degr a/degree holders are not explicitly on by icitly excluded from application by virtue of thei their qualification. Reliance in this ed on in this regard can also be placed on Md. Firoz oz Mansuri (supra), wherein s Satish speaking through Justice Satish Chandra Shar ra Sharma, the following was held: “62. T Educa Educa refined

2. The course structure of Diploma ucation Regulations, 1991, which ucation Regulation, 2020. The D andates 500 hours of compulsory pr urs devoted to dispensing prescript fined the scope of training, limiting ma in Pharmacy is governed by the hich has been replaced by the he Diploma in Pharmacy course 250 ry practical training, including 250 criptions. The 2020 Regulation has , or iting it to hospital, dispensary, or 1Government of In Training Compete https://www.cstari https://www.cstari nt of India, Ministry Of Skill Development & Entre mpetency Based Curriculum for Electrician and W .cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Electrician_CTS2.0_N .cstaricalcutta.gov.in/images/Wireman_CTS2.0_N and Wireman, respectively. Entrepreneurship, Directorate General Of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347 clinic Regula of pra trainin in diff entry o not r qualifi anothe avenue State i for app identif suitabl registe inic-based activities. While, und gulations, 2014, degree students are practical training and they have ining either in a hospital/ com armaceutical industry. The diploma different subjects. Merely because try of diplomates in the second yea t render alification in one stream does not other. Furthermore, the diploma enues as compared to degree hold ate in making possession of a Dipl r appointment cannot be said to be a entified a narrower catchment of itable for a particular purpose, gistered pharmacists. the B. Pharma course s are required to undergo 150 hours have the option to undertake the community centre or within the lomates and graduates are trained use there is a provision for lateral d year of B. Pharm course, it does . A in- -line higher qualification. A n in not presuppose a qualification in lomates have limited employment holders. Thus, the decision of the Diploma an essential qualification be arbitrary. The State has merely t of candidates it considers most se, from within the larger pool the degree an

63. Th Patna Compa of 2018 was he . This policy rationale finds reinfo tna High Court in the case of ompany Ltd. & Ors. v. Md. Asif Hu 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cas s held that, einforcement in a decision by the ing) of Bihar State Power (Holding) f Hussain & Ors. in LPA No. 1416 416 in it Case No. 11096 of 2018, wherein it “….it was a matter of p only to Diploma holders available to Degree hold job opportunities on the Executive Engineers and available to Diploma hold to offer themselves for the the scheme of the conditi company. Thus, the decis Electrical Engineer to o amount to such prohibitio may allow us to invok Constitution of India in fa still have other job opport of policy to offer the employment ders who have no avenues that are holders. The Degree holders have ers, the post of Assistant Engineers, and other posts which are not holders and they are confined only r the post of Junior Engineers under nditions of service of the appellant decision to offer the post of Junior to only Diploma holders does not ibition against Degree holders that nvoke Article 14 and 16 of the in favour of the Degree holders who portunities….” lied) (emphasis supplied) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 0347-2021 and connected cases CWP-10347

64. Ad postgra posses disprop or 16 o Additionally, there is no absolu stgraduate degree holders. They r ssess the essential qualification o sproportionate harm is caused to th 16 of the Constitution.” e or bsolute exclusion of graduate or y remain eligible, provided they No on of Diploma in Pharmacy. No s 14 to them so as to attract Articles 14 dded) (emphasis added) CONCLUSI LUSION

17. In view of the discussion abov d the above, this Court does not find the condition req on requiring an ITI certificate in Ele rom a in Electrical/Wireman Trade from a recognised in ised institution for applying to the p s laid the post of ALM or ASSA, as laid down by adv by advertisement no.CRA-11/2021 da 1) 21 dated 18.05.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by th by the respondent-PSTCL to be inf of the be infringing upon the rights of the petitioners. A . Accordingly, all the aboveme s are ovementioned present petitions are dismissed.

18. Pending miscellaneous applicat pplication(s), if any shall also stand ed of. disposed of.

22.01.2026 P.C (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) RAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document