Date o itioner v. Punjab State State Cooperative Supply and Ma d Marketing Federation L
Case Details
CWP-30287 287-2025 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 246 Shiv Nath CWP-30287-2025 CWP , 2025 Date of Decision: December 09, 2025 Date o itioner .....Petitioner SUS VERSUS Punjab State State Cooperative Supply and Ma d Marketing Federation Limited an ted and another ..Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advo , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocat and Ms. Preet, Advocates for the dvocate with Ms. Navdita Rathore for the respondents. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present civil writ petition h le 226 ition has been filed under Article 226 of the Consti Constitution of India for issuance of a tiorari ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing ashing of the impugned order dated 13) dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-13) passed by the by the respondents, whereby the peti zation e petitioner's claim for regularization of his service services has been rejected on the gro ed the he ground that he has not passed the Punjabi langu i language examination at the Middle S iddle Standard level. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 287-2025 2 2. Learned counsel for the petition at the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner wa ner was appointed as a Mali in April dering April, 1998 and has been rendering continuous se ous service for over 27 years without at the ithout any break. He submits that the Government ment of Punjab's Regularization Polic exure n Policy dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-7), entitles ntitles employees who have comple to be ompleted ten years of service to be regularized ized under which the petitioner a n on oner applied for regularization on 25.08.2023 (A 023 (Annexure P-8) and, upon not re ached not receiving a response, approached this Court by urt by way of CWP No.21336 of 2025
Decision
with a f 2025, which was disposed of with a direction to p on to pass a speaking order. In compl r was compliance, the impugned order was passed, rejec , rejecting his claim on the ground uisite ground that he lacked the requisite educational ional qualification of passing middle cy in middle standard with proficiency in Punjabi langu i language . He submits that the groun nable, ground of rejection is unsustainable, especially in lly in light of the petitioner's long s er the long service of 27 years. Further the counsel cont l contends that four similarly situate arized tuated employees were regularized without insis t insistence on the language qualifica liance alification. He further places reliance on the judgm judgment of the Division Bench of thi and of this Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. S s. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 6 of the C 65364 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasa tate rasad and others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Dev Development Corporation, 1991 (1) 1 (1) SCC 361. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for t at the el for the respondents submits that the 2023 Policy a olicy and the Markfed Common Cadre equire Cadre Rules, 1990, explicitly require the petitioner itioner to possess the minimum qualif assing qualification, which includes passing the 8th Stand Standard with Punjabi. He argues th t meet ues that the petitioner does not meet PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 287-2025 3 this prerequis erequisite criteria and, therefore, canno elying , cannot claim regularization. Relying on judgemen gement rendered in Tata Chemica r of micals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Pr (Preventive), Jannagar 215 AIR s that AIR (SCW) 3571, he submits that where a statu a statute or policy prescribes a mann ust be manner for doing an act, it must be performed in ed in that manner alone. He further a ur rther argues that the cases of the four employees c ees cited by the petitioner are d were are distinguishable, as they were regularized u ized under different, earlier policies gative olicies, and the doctrine of negative equality cann y cannot be invoked. He places relianc njab reliance on Rajesh Gupta Vs. Punjab & Haryana ana High Court, 2025 NCPHHC i V. HHC 36129, and A. Umarani V. Registrar Co r Cooperative Societies, 2004(4) SC ) SCT 728 SC. 4. I have heard learned counsel f ed the nsel for the parties and perused the record with th with their able assistance. 5. It transpires that the petitioner w April oner was appointed as a Mali in April 1998 and ha has rendered unbroken service fo k and ice for over 27 years. His work and conduct have t have been satisfactory as nothing aga n light ing against it has been brought in light of this cour court. The State of Punjab issued cy on issued a Regularization Policy on 16.05.2023 f 023 for employees who have compl . The completed ten years of service. The petitioner ap ner applied under this policy, and solely and his claim was rejected solely because he do e he does not have a Middle Standard p ndard pass certificate with Punjabi. 6. The core issue is whether, after rvice, , after 27 years of continuous service, an employee ployee can be denied regularization f not zation solely on the ground of not possessing a sing a formal educational qualificatio upon fication that was never insisted upon PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 287-2025 4 during his de his decades of service, especially whe loyees lly when similarly situated employees have been reg een regularized. 7. This Court is of the opinion that denial on that the issue with regard to denial of regularisa ularisation on the ground of nonavai sts or onavailability of sanctioned posts or having minim minimum qualification is squarely c of the rely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supr e Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. S C v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65 and the ju the judgments rendered by the Divisi tate Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab an b and others Vs. Sarwan Ram, 2025 2025 NCPHHC 65364. 8. The Division Bench of this Cou , has is Court in Sarwan Ram (supra), has categorically rically held that: “19. U judgme employ deny th minim 9. Under question No.2, while elabo dgments of the Hon'ble Apex Cou ployees had worked for a long per ny them benefit of regularization o inimum qualification.” a of aborately discussing a plethora of Court, it was held that once the the g period, it would be unjustified to d to sing on on the ground of not possessing 9. A similar issue in this regard c Hari gard came before this court in Hari dded) (emphasis added) Ram v. Sta State of Haryana, CWP-25042 court 42 of 2025, where in this court ed that, observed that “6. Th term e nature constit employ the em when signifi fundam 14, 16 employ resour . This Court has been constrained rm employees are engaged on ad ho ture of the services rendered b nstitutional employer, cannot be a ployees under the garb of lack of s e employees to meet educational qu hen they have been consistently se gnificant time period. Such an ap ndamental rights of the temporary 16 and 21 of the Constitution of ployees cannot be forced to bear sources when the State had no qua ned to observe a trend, where long long d hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nial g a d by them. The State, being a be allowed to exploit its temporary rary of sanctioned posts or inability of ty of osts, al qualifications for regular posts, ly serving its instrumentality for a or a n approach would be violative of e of ticle ary employees enshrined in Article n of India. Further still, temporary rary ear the brunt of lack of financial cial king ualms about continuously taking PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 287-2025 5 advant recurr vantage of the services rendered curring work of the concerned depa and ered with regard to integral and department.….” 10. It is beyond the comprehension uisite nsion of this court that if the requisite dded) (emphasis added) qualification tion was an essential criteria to pe re the to perform the task, how were the respondents dents able to extract satisfactory actory work from tioner the petitioner continuously ously for 27 long years. The res and he respondents have accepted and benefited fr ed from his services ghout throughout aring these years. This glaring contradiction iction reveals that the qualification w tional tion was never treated as a functional prerequisite uisite during his service and is now mere is now being deployed as a mere technical shi al shield to deny a rightful claim. ks of laim. Such an approach smacks of arbitrariness riness and exploitation while also am ion of so amounting to a gross violation of Articles 14 an s 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. The respondents' reliance on th uality on the doctrine of negative equality and the princ e principle that a policy must be follo in the e followed strictly is misplaced in the face of the f the constitutional mandate against riness. gainst exploitation and arbitrariness. When a con a constitutional right is violated, t annot ted, technicalities of policy cannot override subs e substantive justice. The respondent other ondents' own record shows that other employees w ees were regularized without this qua licies. is qualification under earlier policies. To deny the y the petitioner, who has served far lo nder a d far longer, the same benefit under a subsequent w uent welfare policy is palpably discrim iscriminatory. 12. In view of the above discu on is discussion the present petition is accordingly ingly allowed. The respondents are at the ts are directed to ensure that the petitioners ar ners are regularised within six week ipt of weeks from the date of receipt of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30287 287-2025 6 certified cop d copy of this order by the comp t, the competent authorities. If not, the petitioners sh ners shall be deemed to be regularised s from arised on the expiry of six weeks from the date of te of receipt of certified copy of this all be f this order. The petitioners shall be entitled to co to counting of past service and othe nts of d other benefits as per judgments of this Court in urt in Harbans Lal v. State of Punja and unjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Hary Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan gwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 13. Pending miscellaneous applicati posed plication(s), if any, be also disposed of accordingl rdingly. December 09 P.C ber 09, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.12 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document