Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Singh & Others vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
-1-
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
Reserved on: 19.01.2024
Pronounced on: 29.01.2024
Manjeet Singh and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: - Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate,
for the respondents.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
CM-4558-CWP of 2019
1. This application has been filed by the respondents under
Section 151 CPC for placing on record the written statement.
2. Allowed as prayed for.
CWP-9990 of 2017
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing advertisement No.CRA-289/16 (Annexure P-
4) for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Lineman, whereby an
additional eligibility qualification of two years National Apprenticeship
Certificate in Lineman Trade has been prescribed.
2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are
that an advertisement vide CRA No.4/2016 was issued by the Punjab
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
State Transmission Corporation Limited whereby applications were
invited for filling up 100 posts of Assistant Lineman (hereinafter referred
to as 'ALM') in October, 2016 and the qualification prescribed was
matriculation with full time regular ITI in Electrician/Wiremen Trade
from a recognised institution and some of the petitioners, who were duly
qualified for the same, applied for the same and were also found eligible
and called for document verification also vide Annexure P-3. Thereafter,
another advertisement has been issued vide CRA No.289/2016 by
respondent No.1-Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (in short
'PSPCL') in December, 2016 whereby 1500 posts of ALM have been
advertised and the qualification prescribed in the advertisement is
'matriculation and two years National Apprenticeship Certificate in
Lineman Trade'. The petitioners are aggrieved against the prescription
of qualification of 'two years National Apprenticeship Certificate in
Lineman Trade'. In other words, the claim of the petitioners is that they
were eligible under the earlier advertisement i.e. CRA No.04/2016
issued in October, 2016 and have been made ineligible in the second
advertisement, which has been issued in December, 2016. It has further
been averred that the amendment in the service regulations should have
been effected only through a notification as provided under Sections 79
and 79-A of the Electricity Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act
of 1948').
3. Written statement has been filed by the respondents
wherein it has been submitted that vide Circular No.9/2016 dated
03.11.2016, the Corporation has amended qualifications for the post of
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
ALM prescribed in the Punjab State Electricity Board Technical Services
Regulations Class III, 1996 and as per the said amendment vide Circular
dated 03.11.2016, the qualification for direct recruitment of ALM is as
under: -
"PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
Reg: office: The Mall, Patiala
Office order no: 1051 /REG-294 Vol 6 Dated 03.11.16
PSPCL is hereby pleased to amend the Technical
services class III Regulation 1996, Regulation no.9,
Sr.No.5&6 as under:
x x x x
RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE AFTER AMENDMENT
Reg/Sr Name of Procedure Basic and Special
. No the post of the Professional remarks
Page appointmen Qualification
No. t
9/5/8 Assistant Direct 1) 10th or 1) The
Lineman Recruitmen equivalent SE/MPT&ED
t qualification will arrange the
and National training
Apprenticeshi programme of
p Certificate selected
in Lineman candidates and
Trade sent them for 4
months training
2) The in different
candidate who institutions.
have passed
higher 2) Board
education reserves the
qualification right to
like determine the
degree/diplom suitable
a in Electrical percentage of
Engineering, marks obtained
they will be in the National
considered Apprenticeship
only if they .
have minimum
eligibility
qualification of
National
Apprenticeship
Certificate in
Lineman Trade
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
3) Board
reserves the
right to
determine the
suitable
percentage of
marks obtained
in the National
Apprenticeship
Certificate and
can conduct the
written test of
eligible
candidates as
per vacant
posts.
4. It has further been submitted that in pursuance to the said
amendment, posts of ALM have been advertised with the following
prescribed qualifications: -
"i) Matriculation.
ii) Two years National Apprenticeship Certificate in
Lineman Trade.
iii) The candidates who possess higher education i.e.
degree/diploma in Electrical Engineering will be
considered only if they have minimum qualifications i.e. 2
years National Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman
Trade."
5. With regard to the amendment in the Regulations, it has
been submitted that the Board of Directors of PSPCL is competent
authority to amend the Regulations. Para 4 of the written statement reads
as under : -
"4. That the educational/technical qualifications for the
post of Assistant Lineman were circulated vide Regulation
Circular 9/2016 O/o No. 1051 dated 3.11.2016 is
Matriculation and two years National Apprenticeship
Certificate in lineman Trade. But the petitioner sought the
already existing service regulations should continue to
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
operate in terms of Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003
and any amendment to the service regulations should be
effected only through a notification. In this regard, it is
prescribed that the respondent corporation being a Govt.
company is a fully autonomous body being registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 and the competent authority
therefore to take any decision pertaining to any business of
the respondent corporation is its Board of Directors. It is
submitted that keeping in view the autonomous body of
corporation, in case any service regulation/qualification
for any post etc. is to be amended, the decision of the Board
of Directors of PSPCL is the final. It is further added here
that the rules and regulations of Punjab State Transmission
Corporation Limited (PSTCL) are applicable on PSTCL
being separate entity of the Government of Punjab and the
Advertisement No. 4/2016 was issued by the Punjab State
Transmission Corporation."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the
petitioners were eligible under the earlier advertisement bearing CRA
No.04/2016, which was issued in October, 2016 and making them
ineligible by amending the Regulations, the vested rights of the
petitioners have been infringed as they have been made ineligible and
the amendment carried out by the respondent-Corporation, is not in
conformity with the provisions of Sections 79 and 79-A of the Act of
1948.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
argued that the petitioners have no right to challenge the advertisement
which has been issued strictly in conformity with the amended
Regulations as the amendment was carried out on 03.11.2016 and the
advertisement was issued in December, 2016. As the petitioners have no
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
vested right to claim appointment to the post of ALM once they are not
eligible and have not even applied in pursuance to the said advertisement
and the petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-
joinder of necessary parties as the selected/appointed candidates, in
pursuance to the impugned advertisement have not been impleaded as
party-respondents. He further submitted that the service regulations
have been amended in terms of provisions of Act of 2003 as the Act of
1948 has been repealed by Act of 2003 and under the new Act, the
PSPCL being a Government Company can regulate and amend the
existing service regulations through resolutions of their Board of
Directors and there is no requirement for issuance of notification under
Section 79 of the Act of 1948. He has further relied upon the judgment
of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others v. Punjab State
Transmission Corp. Ltd. and ors., 2015(3) S.C.T. 220 wherein same
very issue was considered by this Court. He further submitted that
prescription of qualification is to be decided by the employer and
petitioners cannot question the same and in the absence of challenge to
the regulations, no relief can be sought by the petitioners.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. Admittedly, there is no challenge to the amended
regulations whereby the qualification of two years National
Apprenticeship Certificate in Lineman Trade has been prescribed and the
impugned advertisement has been issued in pursuance to the amended
regulations, therefore, they cannot be allowed to challenge the
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
qualification prescribed for the post of ALM which is strictly in
consonance with the amended regulations.
10. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
amendment has not been carried out in terms of Sections 79 and 79-A of
the Act of 1948 as the amendment has not been notified, is totally mis-
placed. The said issue has already been considered and decided by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra) and the
relevant portion from the said judgment is as under: -
"28. As per clause 6 of this Agreement, subject to the Act,
2003 and the Transfer Scheme, on transfer to PSPCL the
rules and regulations of the Board governing the conditions
of the service such as promotions, transfer, seniority, leave,
allowances etc. shall continue to apply mutatis mutandis.
29. Thus, as per the provisions of the Transfer Scheme,
Tripartite Agreement and the Act, 2003, the respondent-
Corporations are government companies and the service
regulations of the employees thereof can be framed
/amended by the decisions of their Board of Directors.
30. The Act, 1948 having been repealed by the Act,
2003, the reliance by learned counsel for the petitioners
on Section 79 of the 1948 Act is misplaced. So, the
contention of the Ld. Counsel that the regulations can be
amended only through a notification under Section 79 of
the 1948 Act cannot be accepted. It has to be held that the
respondents No.1 and 2 are government companies and
can regulate and amend the existing service regulations
through resolutions of their Board of Directors.
31. Respondent No.2 in its written statement has stated
that the relevant service regulations of the Corporation
had been duly amended by the Board of Directors of the
Corporation vide memo dated 16.11.2011(Annexure P-6).
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
Further vide office order dated 1.12.2011 (Annexure P-9)
the qualifications of various posts advertised in PSPCL
were amended."
11. A Division Bench of this Court in Sandip Singh and others
v. State of Punjab and others, 2022(3) S.C.T. 343 after considering
various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that it is for
the employer to choose the qualifications which were required for filling
up the posts and it is not for the candidates as such to hold out what
should be the requirement. Relevant portion from the said judgment
reads as under: -
"7. The Apex Court in Devender Bhaskar and others vs.
State of Haryana and others, 2022 (1) SCT 51 recently on
24.11.2021 which was pertaining to the Art and Craft
courses equation which was issued by the Kurukshetra
University has held that it is not for the Court to equalize
diplomas/degrees. It was held that judicial review can
neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications
nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications.
The relevant portion reads thus:-
"20. We have already noticed that one of the
eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of
Arts and Crafts teacher as per the advertisement
dated 20.07.2006 is a "two-year Diploma in Art and
Craft examination conducted by the Haryana
Industrial Training Department or an equivalent
qualification recognized by the Haryana Education
Department." It was made clear by the Industrial
Training and Vocational Educational Department,
Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft Course by
the Kurukshetra University is conducted through
distance education and that this course cannot be
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
equated with two-year diploma in Art and Craft
Course awarded by the Haryana Industrial
Training Department. Recognition of the said
Course by the State of Haryana, as held by the High
Court, is entirely different from its equivalence.
When the experts in the Education Department have
held the diploma in Art and Craft by the
Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-
year diploma in Art and Craft awarded by the
Haryana Industrial Training Department, we are of
the view that the High Court was not justified in
equalizing them.
21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors (1975) 3 SCC 76, it was held that the
question regarding equivalence of educational
qualifications is a technical question based on
proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant
academic standards and practical attainments of
such qualifications. It was further held that where
the decision of the Government is based on the
recommendation of an expert body, then the Court,
uninformed of relevant data and unaided by
technical insights necessary for the purpose of
determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb
the decision of the Government unless it is based on
extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated
mala fides or is irrational and perverse or
manifestly wrong.
22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 288 this Court
held that it is not for the court to consider the
relevance of qualification prescribed for various
posts.
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
23. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun,
(2002) 6 SCC 252 this Court held that the
prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to
a course or for recruitment to or promotion in
service are matters to be considered by the
appropriate authority. It was held thus:
"13. From the ratio of the decisions noted
above, it is clear that the prescribed
eligibility qualification for admission to a
course or for recruitment to or promotion in
service are matters to be considered by the
appropriate authority. It is not for courts to
decide whether a particular educational
qualification should or should not be
accepted as equivalent to the qualification
prescribed by the authority."
24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay
Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610 this
Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical
academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed.
Any decision of the academic body of the university
relating to equivalence should be by a specific
order or resolution, duly published. Dealing
specifically with whether a distance education
course was equivalent to the degree of MA
(English) of the appellant university therein, the
Court held that no material had been produced
before it to show that the distance education course
had been recognized as such.
25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was
held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to
prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility,
after taking into consideration the nature of the job,
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
the aptitude required for efficient discharge of
duties, functionality of various qualifications,
course content leading up to the acquisition of
various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can
neither expand the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the
prescribed qualifications with any other given
qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a
matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to
determine.
26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the
High Court has erred in holding that the
diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the
Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year
Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by
the Haryana Industrial Training Department or
diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director,
Industrial Training and Vocational Education,
Haryana."
8. Keeping in view the settled position of law, the
argument which is sought to be raised that vide notification
of the NCTE dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-3), it had been
prescribed that for teachers of Art Education, Craft
Education, Home Science, Work Education, etc. the
existing eligibility norms prescribed by the State
Government and other school management were to be
applicable till such time the NCTE lays down the minimum
qualifications in respect of such teachers is without any
basis. Once statutory Rules as such have been framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, this Court is
of the opinion that the State Government is justified and
had only upgraded the basic eligibility criteria as such by
prescribing Graduation for filling up the posts of Art and
Craft Teachers. No fault as such can be found in such
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
CWP-9990 of 2017 (O&M)
action. It is settled principle that it is for the employer to
choose the qualifications which are required for filling up
the posts and it is not for the candidates as such to hold out
what should be the requirement.
9. The argument that for Elementary Trained Teachers,
the State as such had given a concession regarding the
candidates who have done or are doing elementary training
course with 10+2 qualification would be considered for
employment as one time measure cannot be claimed as a
matter of right as such. In such circumstances, keeping in
view the above observations, no such enforceable right lies
with the petitioners to claim such concession in case some
concession has been granted to separate set of persons."
12. Further, no selected/appointed candidate has been made
party to the present lis and, therefore, also the present writ petition is
liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Reference
may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjan
Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, 2014(3) S.C.T. 620 and the
judgment of this Court in Ashwani Kumar v. Punjab and Haryana High
Court and another, 2016(4) S.C.T. 556.
13. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the present
writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs.
14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
29.01.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011794
12 of 12
