Meena Rani vs State Of Punjab And Another

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -1-
connected petitions.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-33083-2019(O&M)
Reserved on.02.09.2026
Pronounced on:04.11.2026
Uploaded on: 04.11.2026
MEENA RANI -PETITIONER
V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
-RESPONDENTS
CWP-15018-2020
HARBANS SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-RESPONDENTS
CWP-11164-2022
MEENU RANI -PETITIONER
V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate, and
Ms. Shefali Bahia, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP-33083-2019).
Mr. Sukhdev Raj Kamboj, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP-15018-2020).
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate, and
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -2-
connected petitions.
Ms. Malika Sobti, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP-11164-2022).
Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. All the aforesaid petitions are amenable to be decided
together, as a common issue is involved therein, and with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties concerned, these are taken together, for
final adjudication. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being carved out
from CWP-33083-2019 .
2. Through the present writ petition, cast under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to
respondent No.2 to consider her eligible and issue an appointment letter
in her favour to the post of Head Teacher in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner further
seeks quashing of Clause 2(iii) of the advertisement, whereby valid
teaching experience has been confined to experience acquired exclusively
in Central/State Government Schools. A further prayer has been made for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
experience rendered by the petitioner in schools affiliated with the Punjab
School Education Board as valid teaching experience.
3. The petitioner was declared ineligible on the ground that she
did not possess the requisite experience as prescribed under the aforesaid
advertisement. The present petition is, in fact, the second round of
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -3-
connected petitions.
litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing
CWP-26629-2019, seeking a direction upon respondent No. 2 to convey
the reasons for non-inclusion of her name in the final selection list. The
said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2019, directing
the respondents to intimate the reasons for non-inclusion of the
petitioner's name in the select list, particularly when she had secured 162
marks in the General Category and her date of birth was 09.09.1983. On
the other hand, the candidate at serial No.776, namely, Ms. Napinder
Kaur, who was younger than the petitioner, having been born on
02.03.1985, and had secured the same marks, was included in the select
list.
4. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the respondents
passed a speaking order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-7), specifying
therein that the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience of
working as a Primary School Teacher for a minimum period of three years
in a Central/State Government School. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
decision, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that the
petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the
advertisement (Annexure P-2) for the post of Head Teacher. The written
examination was conducted on 21.07.2019, and the result was declared
on 19.08.2019. The petitioner's name figured at serial No. 865 in the list
of successful candidates under the Open Category. She was accordingly
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -4-
connected petitions.
called for scrutiny of documents on 26.08.2019. However, her name did
not figure in the final selection list. Subsequently, she was informed that
she had been declared ineligible for want of the requisite experience.
6. Mr. Arjun Prtaap Atma Ram, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, submitted that the experience certificate (Annexure P-8)
furnished by the petitioner to the respondents clearly reflects that she had
been appointed as a teacher at Guru Nanak Foundation School from
01.04.2011 to 31.03.2015, i.e. for a period of four years. The said
certificate was duly countersigned by the District Education Officer,
Patiala, thereby authenticating the same. Therefore, the reasons recorded
in the speaking order (Annexure P-7), to the effect that the petitioner did
not possess the requisite experience as a Primary School Teacher, are
legally unsustainable.
7. He further submitted that even if the petitioner did not
possess experience of teaching primary classes, there was no dispute
regarding her experience of teaching upper primary classes. Once the
petitioner had acquired experience of teaching higher classes, the same
could not be made a ground for declaring her ineligible, particularly in
view of the settled principle of law that possession of a higher
qualification cannot be a disqualification for appointment.
8. To lend support to his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in
Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab , 2010 (3) SCT 703.
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -5-
connected petitions.
9. He further submitted that the condition stipulated in the
advertisement (Annexure P-2), restricting the requisite teaching
experience to that acquired exclusively in Central/State Government
Schools, is contrary to law. In support of this submission, reliance was
placed upon the judgment rendered in Saroj Anand and another vs. State
of Punjab and others , 1999 (4) RSJ 588.
10. Per contra , learned State counsel strongly opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. At the outset,
he drew the attention of this Court to the Punjab State Elementary
Education (Teaching Cadre) Group C Service Rules, 2018 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules of 2018'), and submitted that the statutory Rules
governing the posts in question specifically require a prospective
candidate to possess a minimum of three years' experience as a Primary
School Teacher in a Central/State Government School. The same
condition has also been incorporated in the advertisement in question.
11. He further submitted that it is within the prerogative of the
employer/State to prescribe the qualifications and eligibility criteria
considered appropriate for the advertised posts.
12. Finally, learned State counsel submitted that the judgments
relied upon by the petitioner in Manjit Singh's case (supra) and Saroj
Anand's case ( supra ) were rendered in the context of the governing rules
and executive instructions applicable therein, which either permitted or
did not expressly exclude experience acquired in recognised/affiliated
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -6-
connected petitions.
private institutions. In contrast, the statutory Rules framed under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in the present case,
specifically mandate experience acquired in a "Central/State Government
School". Therefore, the aforesaid judgments have no application to the
facts of the present case. As regards the submission concerning the
petitioner's experience of teaching higher classes, he contended that the
same is wholly misconceived, as the petitioner was declared ineligible not
on account of the nature or level of classes taught by her, but because she
failed to fulfil the institutional requirement regarding the nature of the
teaching experience, i.e. experience in a Central/State Government
school, as opposed to a private institution.
13. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the
parties concerned and has perused the entire case file.
14. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the requisite
qualifications prescribed under the applicable Rules, i.e. the Punjab State
Elementary Education (Teaching Cadre) Group C Service Rules, 2018,
which are extracted hereinafter :-
“ (i) Should possess Bachelor's Degree from a recognized
University or Institution with at-least 50% marks as per
guidelines of the University Grants Commission.
(ii) Should possess two years Elementary Teachers
Training Course from a recognized University or
institution or two years Diploma in Elementary Education
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -7-
connected petitions.
(D.El.Ed.) as per guidelines of the national Council for
Teachers education or Bachelor Degree in Education
(B.Ed.) from a recognized University or Institution as per
guidelines of the University Grants Commission; and
(iii) Should possess teaching experience of working as
Primary School Teacher for a minimum period of three
years in a Central/ State Government School. However, a
prospective candidate must have acquired such experience
after acquiring the minimum educational and professional
qualifications specified for the posts under these Rules.”
15. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly
clear that the Rules specifically recognise only such teaching experience
as has been acquired by working as a Primary School Teacher for a
minimum period of three years in a Central/State Government School.
The Rules do not recognise teaching experience acquired in private
schools, including schools affiliated with the Punjab School Education
Board, for the purpose of fulfilling the aforesaid eligibility condition.
16. The advertisement in question incorporates the same
eligibility condition. The relevant portion thereof is extracted
hereinafter:-
“ (i) Should possess Bachelor's Degree from a recognized
university or institution with atleast 50% marks as per
guidelines of the University Grants Commission.
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -8-
connected petitions.
(ii) Should possess two years Elementary Teachers Training
course from a recognized university or institution or two
years Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) as per
guidelines of the National Council for Teachers Education
or Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed) from a recognized
university or institution as per guidelines of the University
Grants Commission and
(iii) Should possess teaching experience of working as
Primary School Teacher for a minimum period of three years
in a Central/State Government School. However, a
prospective candidate must have acquired such experience
after acquiring the minimum educational and professional
qualifications specified for Final merit list of the candidates
shall be based upon the marks obtained in the educational
qualifications/professional qualifications prescribed for the
posts.”
17. The petitioner possesses the following teaching experience,
as reflected in the documents placed on record: -
“ (i)Punjabi teacher experience certificate of 4 years from
school affiliated to Punjab State Education Board;
(ii)Certificate of contract teacher of one year acquired from
Kendriya Vidylaya. ”
18. In view of the aforesaid statutory requirement, the
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -9-
connected petitions.
respondents have rightly declined to consider the petitioner's experience
acquired in the private school as qualifying experience. The experience
certificate issued by Guru Nanak Foundation School, Patiala, i.e. the
affiliated private school, does not satisfy the requirement of the Rules,
which specifically mandates a minimum of three years' experience as a
Primary School Teacher in a Central/State Government School.
19. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the four-year experience certificate furnished by the petitioner had
been countersigned by the District Education Officer, Patiala, thereby
authenticating the experience acquired by her, does not advance her case.
The reliance placed upon Saroj Anand's case ( supra ), to contend that
teaching experience acquired in a private school recognised by the PSEB
or CBSE ought to be treated as valid experience, is misplaced. The issue
involved in the present case is, whether the petitioner fulfils the eligibility
criteria prescribed under the statutory Rules of 2018. Admittedly, she
does not possess the requisite experience in a Central/State Government
School. Merely because the experience certificate issued by the private
school was countersigned by the District Education Officer would not
alter the nature of the institution in which the petitioner had rendered her
services. It is well settled that the employer is competent to prescribe the
eligibility conditions for appointment to a particular post. In the present
case, the petitioner participated in the selection process without
challenging Clause 2(iii) of the advertisement. Having participated in the
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -10-
connected petitions.
selection process and remained unsuccessful, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to challenge the aforesaid eligibility condition, at this belated
stage.
20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court
in Jyoti Bala vs. State of Punjab (CWP-14513-2020, decided on
12.03.2024). However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on
facts. In that case, the petitioner had rendered services as a Guest Teacher
in a Government Primary School in the State of Haryana. This Court
allowed her claim on the ground that the Rules of 2018 do not mandate
that the requisite experience must necessarily be acquired on a regular
basis, nor do they restrict the experience gained in a State Government
School to schools situated exclusively within the territorial limits of the
State of Punjab, provided that the teaching experience was actually
acquired in a Government school. In the present case, however, the
petitioner seeks to claim the benefit of four years' experience acquired in
a private institution, namely, Guru Nanak Foundation School, Patiala.
While Jyoti Bala's case clarifies that non-regular teaching experience
acquired in a Government institution is countable, it does not dilute or
dispense with the fundamental statutory requirement that the requisite
experience must be acquired in a Central/State Government School.
Accordingly, the aforesaid judgment does not come to the aid of the
petitioner.
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -11-
connected petitions.
21. Further, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner upon the judgment rendered in Gurpreet Kaur vs. State of
Punjab and others (CWP-31017-2019, decided on 08.04.2024) is also
misplaced and is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the
petitioners had been engaged under the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA)
arrangement; however, their actual teaching duties were performed in
Government Schools. This Court held that neither the source of funding
nor the nomenclature of employment, whether under the PTA
arrangement, as a Guest Teacher or on a contractual basis, could alter the
fact that the petitioners had acquired teaching experience in a
Government School. In stark contrast, the petitioner in the present case
had rendered her services in an entirely private, unaided institution. Thus,
while Gurpreet Kaur's case deals with the nature of engagement, i.e.
PTA/Guest/Contractual as opposed to regular employment, within the
institutional framework of a Government School, the controversy in the
present case concerns the very nature of the institution in which the
teaching experience was acquired, i.e. a private institution as opposed to
a Government School. Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment
cannot be extended to treat teaching experience acquired in a private
school as equivalent to the experience mandated under the statutory
Rules.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought to address
arguments regarding petitioner's experience of teaching higher classes.
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-33083-2019 (O&M) & -12-
connected petitions.
However, the said aspect does not arise for consideration in the present
case. The petitioner has been declared ineligible on account of her failure
to fulfil the statutory requirement of possessing the requisite teaching
experience in a “Central/State Government School”. Therefore, whether
she had experience of teaching upper primary classes or higher classes is
wholly immaterial to the controversy involved in the present writ petition.
23. In suma finding no merit in the instant petition ( CWP-
33083-2019) , the same is hereby dismissed .
24. In view of the fact that all the connected matters arise out of
the same cause of action and involve identical questions of law and facts,
the issues raised therein are squarely covered by the findings recorded
and the conclusions arrived at by this Court in the lead case, i.e. CWP-
33083-2019, which has been dismissed by this Court. Accordingly, all the
connected matters are also dismissed in the same terms, for the reasons
recorded in the aforesaid lead case.
25 All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
26. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the
connected cases.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
November 04, 2026 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes
Whether Reportable. : Yes
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document