Manoj Kumar vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

CWP-23036-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
249

CWP-23036-2025
Date of decision: 02.11.2026

Manoj Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus

Haryana Staff Selection Commission
....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. R.S. Dhull and Mr. Navnit Sharma and Ms. Neelam
Yadav, Advocates for the petitioner.

Dr. Neha Awasthi, Addl. AG Haryana.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.

1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order
or direction, especially a writ in the nature of certiorari , for quashing the
impugned final result dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-3), to the extent of
non-selection of the petitioner to the post of Librarian (Category No. 03),
despite the petitioner having secured more marks than the last selected
candidate under the BCB category; further, for quashing the impugned
order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the
petitioner has been rejected; and for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus , directing the respondents to recommend the name of the
petitioner for appointment to the post of Librarian (Category No. 03)
under the BCB category, in view of his merit, along with all consequential
benefits, including seniority, arrears of salary and notional benefits. A
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 2

further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to produce the
original record pertaining to the petitioner, including his application form,
certificates, scrutiny form, etc., before this Court.
CONTENTIONS
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that
the petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Librarian
under Category No. 03 in terms of Advertisement No. 12/2019 dated
20.07.2019 (Annexure P-1). Referring to the essential qualifications
prescribed under the advertisement at page No. 21 of the paper-book,
learned counsel submits that the petitioner's certificate (Annexure P-8)
clearly indicates that he acquired the Bachelor of Library and Information
Science in the year 2015 from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal.
Thereafter, he also acquired the Master of Library and Information
Science from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (Annexure P-9).
With regard to the experience requirement, learned counsel refers to the
experience certificate (Annexure P-10), issued by the Indian Army, which
indicates that the petitioner gained experience in the field of Library and
Information Science while serving in the Indian Army. It is further
contended that the veracity of the said certificate has been doubted by the
respondent-Commission, despite the fact that the petitioner was earlier
considered eligible on the basis of the very same certificate and was
placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list under the ESM BCB category, as is
discernible from the final result dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-3). As
such, once the petitioner has acquired the requisite experience while
serving in the Indian Army, the respondents are bound to consider him
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 3

eligible for the post in question. It is not a case where the petitioner has
obtained experience from some non-descript private institute; rather, he
has served in the Indian Army.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had
applied under Category No. 03 for the post of Librarian, for which two
years' experience as a Junior Librarian is mandatory. The experience
certificate (Annexure P-10) does not indicate the duration or the specific
period during which the petitioner served as a Junior Librarian. In the
absence of any clarification or specific particulars regarding the nature
and duration of such experience, the petitioner cannot be considered to
have acquired the requisite two years' experience as a Junior Librarian.
Accordingly, the petitioner was rightly held ineligible for the post in
question.
OBSERVATIONS & ANALYIS
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner participated in the
selection process pursuant to the advertisement ( supra ) under Category
No. 03. The essential qualifications prescribed for the said post, as
discernible from Annexure P-1, read as under:-

“ Essential Qualification :-
(i) Bachelor degree in Library Science from a recognized
university;
(ii) Two years experience as a Junior Librarian in any
reputed Institute;
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 4

(iii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard or higher
education.”
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possesses a Bachelor of
Library and Information Science degree, as is evident from Annexure
P-8. However, the controversy in the present case primarily revolves
around the fulfilment of the second essential qualification, i.e. two years'
experience as a Junior Librarian in a reputed institute. In this regard, it
would be apposite to reproduce the experience certificate furnished by
the petitioner (Annexure P-10), which reads as under:-
“EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE

1. This is to certify that No 15208943K Rank Nk Trade OpR Name
Manoj Kumar was employed in Indian Army from 01 Jan 2004 till
31 Mar 2019. During this tenure he has achieved experience and

has gained expertise in following areas:-
Sr. No Type of Nature of Duties Remarks
employment
(a) Computer and
Information
Technology
Office automation
(MS Word, MS
Power Point, MS
Excel) Software
installation, database
application and web
design.

(b) Disaster
Management
(CBRN Aspects)
Theoretical as well
as practical aspects,
work with ground
contingencies, use of
disaster management
resources.

(c) Library and
information
Science
Innovation-cum-
automation of
library, use info
materials for org,
stock verification and
efficiently manage all
library services.

PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 5

(d) Documentation Documentation of
troops as system
manager &
supervisory activities
in any Administrative
Department.

(e) Teaching Performed instructor
duties in Category A
& B establishments.


2. The Non Commissioned Officer has got adequate practical and
theoretical knowledge on various aspects and has performed his
bonafide military duties as a soldier with great zeal and enthusiasm
in various office/ branches.
3. We can safely say that we are extremely satisfied with his duties/
abilities. He is not involved in any disciplinary/civil/
vigilance/court cases. It also gives us great pleasure to state that
he will be a valuable asset to any organization, he joins and wish
him luck in his future endeavors.
4. The character of the soldier is Exemplary during his service.
Sd/-
Station: c/o 56 APO Lt. Colonel/Major
Date : 04 Jan 2019” Off. Commanding Officer
Unit-452”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid experience certificate reveals that
the petitioner remained employed in the Indian Army from 01.01.2004 to
31.03.2019 and was serving in the rank of Naik, Trade OpR. The certifi-
cate does mention certain duties pertaining to Library and Information
Science. However, significantly, the certificate does not specify the
period during which the petitioner performed such library-related duties,
nor does it indicate that he was ever appointed or worked in the capacity
of a Junior Librarian. The fact that the petitioner remained in service in
the Indian Army for approximately fifteen years cannot, by itself, lead to
PARUL VERMA
the conclusion that he acquired two years' experience as a Junior
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 6

Librarian during the said period. The overall duration of military service
and the duration of experience in a particular field are two distinct
aspects, which cannot be conflated. Thus, merely mentioning certain
library-related duties in a general experience certificate would not, in the
absence of specific particulars, establish fulfilment of the experience

requirement prescribed under the advertisement ( supra ).
7. It is trite law that the Courts ordinarily do not interfere with
the eligibility criteria prescribed by the recruiting authority when the
terms of the advertisement are clear and are not contrary to any statutory
provision or law. The employer is best suited to determine the
qualifications required for a particular post, keeping in view the nature of
duties attached thereto and the requirements of the establishment.
Furthermore, the question of equivalence of academic qualifications falls
within the domain of the employer and academic experts and ordinarily
does not warrant interference in the exercise of judicial review. In this
regard, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary v.
Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362 , speaking

through Justice Navin Sinha, has observed as follows:-
“10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for
the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the
employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candi-
date must possess according to the needs of the employer and the
nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eli-
gibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desir-
PARUL VERMA able qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 7

interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equiva-
lence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the
language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court
cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in
the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter
has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders,
to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the
garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority
to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions
of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.”
(Emphasis added)
8. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in M.D. Firoz Mansuri & Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors. , 2026 INSC
68 , speaking through Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed as follows:
“56. The Supreme Court in
Maharashtra Public Service Commis-
sion (supra) reiterated that the essential qualifications for ap-
pointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The court can-
not lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve
into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par
with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Question of equivalence will also fall outside the
domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement
and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the
same .
57. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar
Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80, this Court held that the relevancy and suit-
ability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain of the em-
ployer.
xx xx xx
59. Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the
employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 8

qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of recruit-
ment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrari-
ness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts cannot re-
write service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or
substitute their own assessment for that of the employer. The
scope of judicial review in matters of public employment does not
extend to questioning the State’s wisdom or policy in prescribing
the minimum eligibility requirements for a public post. Qualifi-
cations are prescribed keeping in view the needs and interests of
an institution, an industry or an establishment, as the case may
be. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which
can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review.
Whether a particular qualification should or should not be re-
garded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine. The assessment of the expediency, advis-
ability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not war-
rant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be
perverse. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act ar-

bitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.”
(Emphasis added)
9. While dealing with a similar controversy, this Court in
Nipun Syal and others v. State of Punjab and others ( CWP-14254-2022
(O&M) , decision dated 26.08.2025) has held that it cannot act as a
domain expert and render a finding with respect to equivalence of the
prescribed academic qualifications with others, observed as under:-
“12. Admittedly, the petitioners do not possess a D iploma
in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship, however, they do pos-
sess degree/diploma in Civil Engineering. It is the case of the pe-
titioners that they are entitled to apply to the post of Building In-
spector (Technical) as they have studied architecture as a subject
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 9

during their respective courses and have acquired the requisite
knowledge of the subject. It is further stated that they cannot be
left out of the recruitment process in view of the Rules of 2015. The
entire thrust of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the diploma/degree in Civil Engineering, which
includes the subject of architecture, is equivalent to the D iploma
in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship, and as such the peti-
tioners ought to be allowed to be considered for recruitment to the
post of Building Inspector (Technical).
13. It is no longer res integra that this Court, while ex-
ercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot act as a domain expert and render a finding with respect
to equivalence of the prescribed academic qualifications with
others. While the petitioners claim to be competent to perform the
duties of a Building Inspector (Technical) by virtue of their di-
ploma/degree in Civil Engineering, Clause 4(1) of the advertise-
ment (Annexure P-1) categorically calls for a D iploma in Archi-
tecture/Architecture Assistantship. In order to comment on their
alike nature, this Court would have to dawn the robes of a do-
main expert, which is expressly proscribed by a catena of judg-

ments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14.1 Further still, the advertisement (supra) does not leave
any room for ambiguity regarding the eligibility criterion for the
post of Building Inspector (Technical). It would be erroneous on
part of this Court to consider the nature and scope of the subject
of Architecture in the Diploma/Degree course of Civil Engineering
as the qualification prescribed under Clause 4.1 of the advertise-
ment (supra) is not merely directory but is mandatory in nature.
Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment rendered
by a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganpath
Singh Gangaram Sing Rajput vs. Gulbarga University (2014) 3
SCC 676, wherein speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad, the fol-

lowing was observed:
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 10

“21. ... As is evident from the advertisement, applica-
tions were invited for filling up various posts in different
subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA. The adver-
tisement requires post-graduate degree in the `relevant sub-
ject'. The relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of
appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean postgraduate de-
gree in MCA. In our opinion, for appointment to the post of
Lecturer, Masters' degree in the Mathematics is not the rel-
evant subject. The advertisement requires Masters' degree
in `relevant subject' and not `appropriate subject'. In the
present case, the Board of appointment has not stated that
post-graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant sub-
ject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a
post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathe-
matics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This, in our
opinion, was beyond the power of the Board of appoint-
ment.
22. It shall not make any difference even if Mathe-
matics is taught in the Masters' of Computer Application
course. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion,
gravely erred in upholding the contention of Ganpat and
the University that `relevant subject' would mean `such of
those subjects as are offered in the MCA course'. If Math-
ematics is taught in a post-graduate course in Commerce, a
Masters' degree in Commerce would not be relevant for ap-
pointment in Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. There
may be a situation in which Masters' degree in MCA is dif-
ferently christened and such a degree may be considered rel-
evant but it would be too much to say that a candidate having
postgraduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA
would make the holders of a Masters' degree in those sub-
jects as holder of Masters' degree in Computer Application
and, therefore, eligible for appointment. The language of
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 11

the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit
any ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to. Since
the appellant Ganpat did not have a Masters' degree in
Computer Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to
be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. We are
aghast to see that when a candidate possessing Masters' de-
gree in MCA is available, the Board of appointment had
chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for appointment
in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal
and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the University
acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat as
Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division
Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside his ap-
pointment. In our opinion, an unqualified person cannot be
appointed, whoever may be the recommended. We are of the
opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right
in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of
Lecturer in Masters' of Computer Application.”

14.2. Further, a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Devender Bhaskar and others vs. State of Haryana and
others 2022 (1) SCT51, has opined that the Courts cannot expand
the ambit of the prescribed qualifications, nor can they decide on
matters pertaining to equivalence of academic qualifications.
Speaking through Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, the following was ob-
served:
xx xx xx
15. However, considering that these courses have dis-
tinct nomenclature, there must be some difference in the nature
of their respective syllabi. As such, only an expert in his/her field
can truly and correctly draw equivalence between two degrees as
they would possess the requisite knowledge to take the said deci-
sion. Furthermore, the essential qualifications that will allow a
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 12

candidate to discharge duties of a Building Inspector (Technical)
would fall in the exclusive domain of the employer as they are
well versed with the nature of the job. Clearly, it would be beyond
the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to declare equivalence of D iploma in Ar-
chitecture/Architecture Assistantship with Diploma/Degree in
Civil Engineering, especially in absence of any Rules in this re-

gard .”
(Emphasis added)

10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner
admittedly possesses the requisite degree in Library and Information
Science. However, possession of the prescribed academic qualification,
by itself, would not suffice when the advertisement ( supra ) independently
mandates two years' experience as a Junior Librarian in a reputed insti-
tute. The experience requirement is a separate and mandatory eligibility
condition, which a candidate is required to fulfil in addition to the
prescribed educational qualification. The petitioner seeks to rely upon his
experience certificate issued by the Indian Army to establish fulfilment
of the said condition. No doubt, the certificate makes a reference to
certain duties relating to Library and Information Science. However,
what is conspicuously absent is any specific reference to the period for
which the petitioner performed such duties or any indication that he
discharged duties in the capacity of a Junior Librarian. The certificate,
therefore, establishes the petitioner's overall service in the Indian Army,
but does not, in itself, establish the specific experience prescribed under

the advertisement.
PARUL VERMA
11. Furthermore, the essential qualification does not
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 13

require general experience in the field of Library and Information
Science. Additionally, it specifically requires two years' experience as a
Junior Librarian in any reputed Institute. The distinction between having
performed certain library-related duties during military service and
having acquired the prescribed two years' experience as a Junior
Librarian cannot be overlooked. The experience certificate (Annexure
P-10) does not furnish the necessary particulars to establish such
experience. Neither the designation under which the petitioner performed
the alleged library duties nor the specific duration for which he
discharged such duties finds mention therein. The mere fact that the
certificate has been issued by an officer of the Indian Army, or that the
petitioner has rendered long and commendable service in the Army,
cannot dispense with the specific eligibility requirement stipulated in the
advertisement. The question is not whether the petitioner has acquired
some knowledge or experience relating to library services, but whether
the material placed on record establishes that he possesses the precise
experience of two years as a Junior Librarian, as mandated by the
recruiting authority.
12. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner has
served in the Indian Army for a considerable period and that the
experience certificate records his involvement in certain library-related
activities. However, the issue before this Court is not the credibility of
the Indian Army or the genuineness of the experience certificate; rather,
the issue is whether the contents of the said certificate satisfy the specific
experience requirement prescribed for the post in question. The
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 14

certificate, when examined in its entirety, does not establish the requisite
two years' experience as a Junior Librarian. This Court cannot
presume the duration or nature of experience which is not borne out from
the documents placed on record, nor can it dilute or substitute the
essential eligibility condition prescribed by the recruiting authority. The
fact that the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list under the
ESM BCB category in the final result dated 18.05.2022 would also not,
by itself, confer any indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when
fulfilment of the mandatory eligibility condition remains unestablished.
Merit and eligibility are distinct requirements, and a candidate cannot
claim appointment merely on the basis of his position in the merit or
waiting list without establishing that he fulfils the essential qualifications
prescribed for the post.
CONCLUSION
13. In view of the discussion hereinabove and the settled legal
position, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference with
the impugned action of the respondents. The petitioner has failed to
establish that he possesses the mandatory two years' experience as a
Junior Librarian in a reputed institute, as prescribed under the
advertisement ( supra ). The experience certificate furnished by him,
though indicative of certain library-related duties performed during his
service in the Indian Army, does not establish the specific nature and
duration of experience required for the post in question. Consequently,
no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the action of the respondents
in holding the petitioner ineligible for the post of Librarian (Category No.
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-23036-2025 15

03). Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed .
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

02.11.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE

parul verma


Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No


PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment