Om Narayan vs State Of Haryana And Ors

CWP-25224-2024 1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
nd
258 (2 case)

CWP-25224-2024
Date of decision: 28.10.2026

Om Narayan
....Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana and others
....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR


Present: Mr. Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.


Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. AG, Haryana.


HARPREET SINGH BRAR J.

1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari , for
quashing the impugned result dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), qua the
posts of TGT English (ROH) under the BCB category, issued pursuant to
the advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), along with the
impugned Public Notice dated 28.07.2024 (Annexure P-5), whereby the
petitioner has been declared unsuccessful on the ground that he failed to
secure the minimum qualifying marks prescribed in graduation, despite
his claim of fulfilling the essential qualifications stipulated under the
advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1).
1.1. Further prayer is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of
PARUL VERMA mandamus , directing the respondents to revise the final result dated
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 2



27.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) in respect of the post of TGT English (ROH)
under the BCB category by considering the candidature of the petitioner,
on the premise that he fulfils the essential qualifications prescribed under
the advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), and to select and
appoint him to the said post with effect from the date on which similarly
situated candidates were selected and appointed, along with all

consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and interest thereon.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia , contends that
the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the
advertisement dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Category No. 1,
wherein the last date for submission of online applications was stipulated
as 15.03.2023. The petitioner belongs to the BCB category and, in terms
of Note-1 appearing at page No. 27 of the paper-book, is entitled to a
relaxation of up to 5% in the qualifying marks. Accordingly, the petitioner
was required to secure 47.5% marks in the Bachelor's Degree. Learned
counsel refers to Annexure P-2 and submits that, since the petitioner had
not secured the requisite 47.5% marks in English, he subsequently
pursued an Associate Course in English Literature from Indira Gandhi
National Open University (for short, 'IGNOU'). He successfully passed
the said examination in June 2018, and the result was declared on
01.10.2018, as is evident from page No. 49 of the paper-book. It is further
contended that the relevant documents pertaining to the said qualification
were duly annexed with the application form and, therefore, the
qualification acquired from IGNOU was required to be taken into
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 3



consideration while determining his eligibility. Learned counsel thus
submits that, having secured more than 47.5% marks in the Associate
Course in English Literature from IGNOU, the petitioner could not have
been declared ineligible, particularly when the said qualification is
claimed to be equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree.
3. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that, admittedly, the
petitioner acquired his Bachelor's Degree from Maharshi Dayanand
University, Rohtak (for short, 'MDU') and subsequently appeared in the
improvement examination. However, even after availing the opportunity
to improve his marks, the result of which was declared in October 2022,
the petitioner failed to secure the requisite 47.5% marks. It is further
contended that the Associate Course in English Literature pursued by the
petitioner from IGNOU cannot be treated as equivalent to a Bachelor's
Degree with English as one of the prescribed subjects, particularly when
the duration of a Bachelor's Degree is three years, whereas the petitioner
has pursued only a one-year Associate Course. Thus, the petitioner does
not fulfil the essential qualification prescribed under the advertisement

( supra ).
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner participated in the
selection process pursuant to the advertisement (supra), under Category
No. 1, for the post of TGT English. The essential qualifications prescribed
for the said post read as under:-
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 4



“Cat. No. 1 – 1751 posts of TGT English (ROH)

E.Q.

i) Bachelor’s Degree from a recognized university with at least 50%
marks in English as compulsory or elective or Core or Honours
subject and English as a teaching subject in BTC/JBT/D.Ed.
(Diploma in Education)/Diploma in Elementary Education
(D.El.Ed.);

OR

Bachelor’s Degree from a recognized university with at least 50%
marks in English as compulsory or elective or Core or Honours
subject and English as a teaching subject in Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed.)/B.Ed. (Special Education) in accordance with the National
Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations issued from time to time in this regard;
OR
Four years Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) with at
least 50% marks in English subject;
OR
Four years integrated BA.B.Ed. with at least 50% marks in English
subject;
ii) Certificate of having qualified Haryana Teacher Eligibility Test
(HTET) in English subject; and
iii) Hindi or Sanskrit as one of the subject in Matric or Higher
Education.”

4.1. Further, Note No. 1 appearing at page No. 27 of the paper-
book provides as under:-

“Note:-1.
1. Relaxation upto 5% qualifying marks shall be allowed to the
candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC), Backward Class
and differently abled (PwD) candidates. This 5% relaxation in
marks shall be on qualifying marks fixed for General category
candidate and not on the aggregate marks in accordance with the
PARUL VERMA
Supreme Court Judgment dated 18.08.2011 in Civil Appeal No.
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 5



7084 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27965/2010) titled as P.V.
Indiresan vs. Union of India and others. This is further clarified as
under:-
If the minimum qualifying marks are 50% for general category,
then the qualifying marks for SC/BC/Differently abled candidates,
as the case may be, shall be 47.5% i.e. 50 less 5% of 50.
2. 33% posts in each category i.e. General, Scheduled Caste (SC),
Backward Class (A) & Backward Class (B), EWS, Ex-serviceman
(ESM) and differently abled (PwD) candidates shall be reserved
for women and this reservation shall be horizontal. If women
candidate in a particular category are not available then only the
post may be filled from men candidates.
3. Professional Training Diploma or Certificate awarded by any
State, Board or University other than Haryana Education
Department will be recognized only if this Degree or Diploma or
Certificate has been recognized by the Haryana Government; and
A Diploma/Degree course in teacher education recognized by the
National Council Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be
considered. However, in case of diploma in education (Special
Education) and B.Ed. (Special Education), a course recognized by
the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) only shall be considered.”

5. Admittedly, the petitioner acquired his Bachelor's Degree
from MDU, Rohtak, but failed to secure the requisite 47.5% marks
therein, even after appearing in the improvement examination. It is
further not in dispute that the petitioner passed the Associate Course in
English Literature from IGNOU, the result whereof was declared on
01.10.2018 (page No.49 of the paper-book). The issue which, therefore,
arises for consideration is whether the said one-year Associate Course
PARUL VERMA can be treated as equivalent to the three-year Bachelor's Degree
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 6



prescribed under the advertisement ( supra ), so as to make the petitioner
eligible for consideration for the post in question.
6. 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-
able qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an
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
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 7



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)
7. 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
qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of recruit-
ment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrari-
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 8



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)
8. 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. The relevant observations
of this Court are reproduced 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-
PARUL VERMA
spector (Technical) as they have studied architecture as a subject
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 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
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 10



SCC 676, wherein speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad, the fol-
lowing was observed:
“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
PARUL VERMA
postgraduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 11



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
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
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 12



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
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)

9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is
evident that the petitioner admittedly failed to secure the minimum
qualifying marks of 47.5% in his Bachelor's Degree obtained from
Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, as prescribed under the
advertisement ( supra ), even after availing the opportunity to improve his
marks. In an attempt to overcome the aforesaid deficiency, the petitioner
seeks to rely upon the Associate Course in English Literature pursued
from IGNOU, the result whereof was declared on 01.10.2018 (page
No.49 of the paper-book). However, the essential qualification prescribed
under the advertisement ( supra ) categorically requires a Bachelor's
Degree from a recognised University with at least 50% marks in English
as a compulsory, elective, Core or Honours subject, subject to the
permissible relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks for candidates
PARUL VERMA belonging to the reserved categories. The said relaxation, therefore,
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 13



operates only in respect of the minimum qualifying marks and does not
dispense with the requirement of possessing the prescribed Bachelor's
Degree.
10. Furthermore, the Associate Course in English Literature
pursued by the petitioner from IGNOU is a one-year course, whereas the
qualification prescribed under the advertisement is a Bachelor's Degree.
No material has been brought on record to establish that the said
Associate Course has been recognised by the competent authority as
equivalent to the prescribed three-year Bachelor's Degree for the purpose
of recruitment to the post in question. Merely because the petitioner has
studied English Literature and secured the requisite percentage of marks
in the Associate Course would not, by itself, confer upon him the
eligibility required under the advertisement ( supra ). The fact that the
petitioner acquired the said qualification prior to the last date of
submission of applications or submitted the relevant documents along
with his application form would also not cure the substantive deficiency

in the prescribed educational qualification.
11. In view of the settled legal position discussed hereinabove,
this Court cannot assume the role of an academic expert or substitute the
qualification specifically prescribed by the recruiting authority with
another qualification, in the absence of any recognition or declaration of
equivalence by the competent authority. The petitioner, having failed to
establish that the Associate Course in English Literature pursued from
IGNOU is equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree prescribed under the
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CWP-25224-2024 14



advertisement ( supra ), cannot claim eligibility on the basis thereof.
Consequently, no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the action of
the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on account
of his failure to fulfil the essential educational qualification.
CONCLUSION
12. In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Court does not
find any ground warranting interference in the impugned action of the
respondents in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to establish that he
fulfils the essential educational qualification prescribed under the
advertisement ( supra ). Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed .
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE

28.10.2026
parul verma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No
PARUL VERMA
2026.11.05 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment