[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Mohan And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 January, 2026
CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(I) CWP-2533-2017 (O&M)
Reserved on: 13.10.2025
Pronounced on: 08.01.2026
Uploaded on: 09.01.2026
SURINDER MOHAN AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(II) CWP-1067-2017 (O&M)
RAVINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(III) CWP-14501-2017 (O&M)
DHEERAJ SAINI -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(IV) CWP-14784-2017 (O&M)
AMANDEEP SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(V) CWP-2984-2017 (O&M)
RAHUL DEV SINGH RANA -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(VI) CWP-400-2017 (O&M)
1 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:42 :::
CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 2
MANISH KUMAR -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(VII) CWP-477-2017 (O&M)
NAVDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS -PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(VIII)CWP-721-2017 (O&M)
RUSTAM BIR SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
(IX) CWP-8491-2017 (O&M)
SUKHJEET SINGH -PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-2533-2017).
Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, and
Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-1067-2017).
Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-14784-2017).
Mr. Mohit, Advocate, for
Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-2984-2017).
Ms. Bisman Mann, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-400-2017).
2 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2026 15:40:43 :::
CWP-2533-2017 (O&M) and connected cases 3
Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-477-2017).
Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-721-2017).
Mr. Mohit Sadana, Advocate (Through V.C.)
for the petitioner (in CWP-8491-2017).
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Additional A.G., Punjab, assisted by
Dr. Dharminder S. Lamba, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Ms. Ekjot Sandhu, Advocate
for the respondent No.4 - G.N.D.U. (in CWP-2533-2017).
Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate, and
Ms. Shivani Saini, Advocate
for the respondent No.4 (in CWP-14501-2017).
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Gauravjit S. Patwalia, Advocate
for the intervenor/proposed respondent no.7
(in CWP-1067-2017).
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. All these writ petitions are amenable for being decided
through a common verdict on account of theirs inhering a common
question of law and fact. In essence, the petitioners are aggrieved by the
respondents' decision declaring them ineligible for appointment to the
post of Intelligence Assistant (in the respective ranks of Constable and
Sub-Inspector) on the ground of non-fulfilment of the prescribed
educational qualifications.
2. Concisely and compendiously, the respondent(s)-department,
vide Advertisement No.1/2016 dated 01.09.2016 and Advertisement
No.2/2016 dated 08.09.2016, invited online applications for direct
3 of 20
recruitment to fill up vacancies of male and female Intelligence Assistants
and Intelligence Officers, in the respective ranks of Constable and Sub-
Inspector, in the Intelligence Wing of Punjab Police. The petitioners
applied within the stipulated period and successfully cleared the physical
efficiency test, whereafter they were permitted to appear in the written
examination. However, upon scrutiny of documents by a duly constituted
Committee, the petitioners were found ineligible on account of non-
fulfilment of the prescribed educational qualifications.
3. Since the fulcrum of the dispute consists of the educational
qualifications prescribed in the respective advertisements (supra), it is
deemed imperative, at the outset, to advert to and examine the prescribed
educational qualifications, which are reproduced hereinafter:-
"ADVT. NO.: 1/2016
C. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
The minimum educational qualification for direct
recruitment as Intelligence Assistants (in rank of Constables)
shall be as defined in Appendix 'B' (Sr. No. 04) of Punjab
Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 2015 as amended
by the Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service (First
Amendment) Rules, 2016:
(a) Should be a graduate from a recognized university or
institution, as the case may be, provided that such candidate
should also possess an 'O' Level Certificate of Information
Technology from Department for Electronics Accreditation of
Computer Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics
and Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution
recognized by the Government of India or any State Government;
OR
(b) B.Sc/B.Tech./BE in Information Technology or Computer
4 of 20
Science or Information Systems or B.C.A or Post Graduate
Diploma in Computer Applications from a recognized university
or institution, as the case maybe."
"ADVT. NO.: 2/2016
C. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
The minimum educational qualification for direct
recruitment as intelligence Officers (in the rank of Sub-
Inspectors) shall be as defined in Appendix 'B' (Sr. No. 01) of
Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service Rules, 2015 as
amended by the Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group 'C') Service
(First Amendment) Rules, 2016:
(a) Should be a graduate from a recognized university or
institution, as the case may be, provided that such candidate
should also possess an 'O' Level Certificate of Information
Technology from Department for Electronics Accreditation of
Computer Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics
and Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution
recognized by the Government of India or any State Government;
OR
(b) B.Sc/B.Tech./BE in Information Technology or Computer
Science or Information Systems or B.C.A or Post Graduate
Diploma in Computer Applications from a recognized university
or institution, as the case maybe."
4. It has consistently been the case of the petitioners that they
possess degrees of B.Sc. with Computer Science or qualifications higher
than the 'O' Level Certificate of Information Technology from
Department for Electronics Accreditation of Computer Course
(hereinafter referred to as the "DOEACC"). Conversely, the respondents
maintain that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications, as
prescribed, and that their candidature was, therefore, rightly rejected.
5 of 20
COLLECTIVE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS
5. In beseeching the reliefs yearned for in these writ petitions,
learned counsel for the petitioners, led by Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate,
advanced collective arguments. The principal contention is that although
the degrees issued to the petitioners merely bear the nomenclature
"B.Sc.", the petitioners pursued and passed the B.Sc. course with Physics,
Mathematics, and Computer Science as their subjects, which, according to
them, constitutes B.Sc. (Computer Science). Reliance is placed upon the
prospectus of D.A.V. College, Jalandhar, which is affiliated with Guru
Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, and from where some of the petitioners
graduated, to contend that B.Sc. (General) with Computer Science as a
subject is equivalent to B.Sc. (Computer Science). Further reliance is
placed on the fee receipts issued to the petitioners at the time of
admission, wherein the course is reflected as B.Sc. (Computer Science).
6. The next argument is that the petitioners are graduates and
have studied the subject of Computer Science in their B.Sc. course, which
is much higher than 'O' Level Certificate of Information Technology
from the DOEACC, as has been specifically clarified by the Panjab
University, Chandigarh, and Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, vide
letters dated 28.12.2016 and 04.01.2017. Further, it is submitted that
during the pendency of these writ petitions, two of the petitioners namely
Dheeraj Saini and Harjinder Singh were issued fresh and corrected
degrees by the University(ies) concerned, and hence now they possess the
6 of 20
degrees of B.Sc. (Computer Science). Therefore, they are eligible to be
considered for appointment to the advertised posts.
7. Elaborating the arguments, Ms. Bisman Mann, Advocate,
submits that the essential eligibility requirements, as enclosed in Para
5(C) of the Advertisement No.2/2016, prescribes two distinct categories
of educational qualifications and a candidate fulfilling either category is
eligible. It is submitted that petitioner- Manish Kumar (CWP-400-2017)
satisfies Category (b), which requires a B.Sc./B.Tech./B.E. in Information
Technology or Computer Science or Information Systems or B.C.A. or a
Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications from a recognized
University or Institution. Petitioner- Manish Kumar holds a B.Sc.
(Computer Science) degree from D.A.V. College, Chandigarh, affiliated
with Panjab University, Chandigarh, and his Detailed Marks Cards for all
three years reflect Physics, Mathematics, and Computer Science as his
subject combination. Moreover, a clarification dated 26.12.2016 issued by
D.A.V. College certifies him as a bona fide student of B.Sc. (Computer
Science).
8. To fortify her submissions, learned counsel also refers to a
clarification obtained from the University Grants Commission (UGC)
with regard to equivalence, which states that no specific regulations have
been framed regarding subject combinations for B.Sc. (Computer
Science), and that such determination rests with the concerned University
or the recruiting authority. Reference is also made to the UGC
(Specification of Degrees) Notification dated 05.07.2014, which mandates
7 of 20
that degree nomenclature and minimum instructional standards be clearly
specified in admission brochures and on institutional websites. The
Admission Brochure for the academic session 2012-13 of the college of
petitioner- Manish Kumar specifies that the combination of Physics,
Mathematics, and Computer Science falls under B.Sc. (Computer
Science). It is thus argued that the expression "B.Sc. (General)" refers
merely to the degree title, whereas the stream is determined by the
combination of subjects studied. Therefore, the degree of B.Sc. (General)
held by petitioner- Manish Kumar has to be considered as degree of B.Sc.
(Computer Science).
9. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, also joined the same wagon and
reiterated the hereinabove advanced arguments. He submits that
equivalence of qualifications must be determined by the concerned
University, which, in the present case, has clarified that a B.Sc. degree
with Computer Science as a subject be recognized much higher than that
of 'O' Level Course of the DOEACC. Consequently, the petitioners, on
account of theirs possessing higher qualifications than the one prescribed
in the advertisements, are eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
10. Learned State counsel vehemently controverted the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that the
Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of Punjab, vide
notification dated 17.08.2016, constituted a State-Level Direct
Recruitment Board for Intelligence Officers in the Intelligence Wing of
8 of 20
Punjab Police. Pursuant thereto, the Chairman of the Board/Director
General of Police, Punjab, issued Standing Order No.10/2016 prescribing
qualifications, procedure, and criteria for direct recruitment, strictly in
accordance with the Punjab Police Service Rules, 2015, as amended in
2016. The recruitment process was conducted with complete
transparency, and no allegation of mala fides has been levelled by the
petitioners. During document verification, candidates were afforded an
opportunity to appeal against the decision of the Board for disqualifying
them on account of non-fulfilling the required minimum educational
qualifications or non submission of valid caste/category certificates for
claiming reservation.
11. It is further submitted that, given the technical nature of
certificate verification, a Committee of Experts was also constituted with
the approval of the Director General of Police, Punjab, vide order dated
18.11.2016. The Committee comprised experts from diverse fields,
including representatives of various Universities, to ensure a reasoned and
informed decision by the Board. The final decision on the appeals
submitted by the candidates was taken with the help and guidance of this
Committee of Experts.
12. Learned State counsel lays much emphasis on the applicable
Rules to submit that only 'O' Level Certificate holder is eligible, as the
Rules do not provide for an 'equivalent certificate' but only provide for
the same certificate from an 'equivalent institution' to the DOEACC or
National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology or its
9 of 20
equivalent recognized by the Government of India or any State
Government. It is contended that the Recruitment Board and Committee
of Experts were not required to determine equivalence of degrees or
compare syllabi of various courses offered by private or government
institutes to examine whether the submitted certificates were equivalent to
the required minimum educational qualifications. All certificates were
required to be issued by a recognized authority.
13. Finally, it is asserted that the petitioners possess degrees of
B.Sc. (General) and not B.Sc. (Computer Science). Merely having
Computer Science as one of the subjects does not satisfy Clause (b) of the
prescribed educational qualifications and does not render the petitioners
eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE
INTERVENOR
14. Learned senior counsel for the intervenor submits that the
controversy is no longer res integra. Similarly situated candidates had
earlier approached this Court by filing CWP-13-2017 seeking identical
relief. However, the said writ petition and connected matters were
dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 06.06.2019, and the
dismissal order was affirmed in LPA-1453-2019 vide order dated
17.09.2019. The issue, therefore, stands conclusively settled and cannot
be raked up again before this Court.
REASONS FOR DISMISSING THESE WRIT PETITIONS
15. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned
10 of 20
counsel for the contesting litigants and also made a studied survey of the
record.
16. To the considered mind of this Court, the petitioners'
contention that possession of a B.Sc. degree with Computer Science as a
subject constitutes a higher qualification than the 'O' Level Certificate of
Information Technology from the DOEACC, as required for the
advertised posts, lacks merit. The reason for drawing this inference stems
from the fact that an identical contention was raised by similarly situated
candidates in CWP-13-2017 and was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench
vide order dated 06.06.2019, which has attained finality upon dismissal of
LPA-1453-2019 on 17.09.2019. The relevant portion of the order dated
06.06.2019 is extracted hereunder:-
"Stand of the State is that to become eligible for
appointment of Intelligence Assistant, a candidate should be a
graduate from a recognized University or Institution and should
also possess an 'O' Level Certificate of Information Technology
from Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer
Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics and
Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution
recognized by Government of India or any State Government. As
per the stand of the State, the petitions are liable to be dismissed
as petitioners do not possess the necessary qualifications as per
the advertisement.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
At the outset it is necessary to refer to the advertisement in
question. Clause 5 (c) thereof laid down the questions. Same
reads as under:-
XX XX XX
11 of 20
As per their own stand, petitioners do not possess the
aforesaid qualification. On the other hand, they claim
equivalence on the basis of qualifications possessed by them.
Such equivalence is not prescribed anywhere. Petitioners claim it
on the basis of parameters conceived by themselves. The selection
process was conducted by a State level Direct Recruitment Board
comprising senior officers, who considered the qualification as
per the advertisement. The requirement as per the advertisement
was to possess an 'O' Level Certificate of Information Technology
from the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer
Course (DOEACC) or National Institute of Electronics and
Information Technology (NIELIT) or its equivalent institution
recognized by the Government of India or any State Government.
The Selection Board found that qualification possessed by
the petitioners was not equivalent to that prescribed in the
advertisement. Counsel for the petitioners have tried to convince
this court about the equivalence of qualification. However, the
argument does not cut ice. The qualification is clearly prescribed
in the advertisement. Admittedly petitioners do not possess the
same. There is nothing to show that qualification possessed by the
petitioners including the 'O' Level Certificate, if any, has been
obtained from an institution equivalent to DOEACC or NIELIT,
recognized as such by Government of India or any State
Government. The emphasis in the advertisement is on "equivalent
institution" recognized by Government of India or any State
Government. None of the petitioners claim to have qualification
from such "equivalent institution"."
17. In any event, the issue is not of equivalence of degrees, but
of equivalence of institution to the DOEACC or National Institute of
Electronics and Information Technology or its equivalent recognized by
the Government of India or any State Government. Therefore, the
contention (supra) pales into insignificance. This Court has no reason to
12 of 20
take a divergent view from that taken by the Co-ordinate Bench and LPA
Bench.
18. The next issue warranting adjudication is whether the
petitioners, on accounts of their possessing degrees of B.Sc. (General)
with Computer Science as a subject, are eligible for appointment to the
advertised posts.
19. A duly constituted Committee of Experts, including
University representatives, unequivocally opined that degree of B.Sc.
(General) with Computer Science as one of the subjects cannot be treated
as equivalent to B.Sc. (Computer Science). The equivalence of the
prescribed qualification with other qualifications is to be considered by
the State, being the recruitment authority. Equivalence being a technical
academic matter cannot be implied or assumed. Moreover, judicial review
can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide
the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given
qualification. This position stands fortified by the verdict of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala and Others", (2024) 8
SCC 309. The relevant paragraphs of the said verdict are extracted
hereunder:-
"13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the post
advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a degree in
B.Sc(Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold such a
degree. It is the case of the appellant that B.Sc (Polymer
Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as
equivalent to a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). However, the said
argument does not hold water and is misconceived.
13 of 20
14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v.
Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404, held that
judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed
qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed
qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the
equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be
determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review.
Whether a particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied)
15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of India and Others,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 343, a three Judge Bench of this Court,
while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru
Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another,
(2009) 1 SCC 610, held 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 specific order or resolution, duly published.
16. The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the
University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10th October,
2011 verifying that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) course of the said
University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc(Chemistry)
course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this
Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV(supra). In view of the
settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, we
are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for
the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008."
20. It has not been the case of the petitioners that the respondents
have arbitrarily or with mala fide intent taken a decision to declare them
disqualified, rather it is apparent from a perusal of paper-books of these
writ petitions that a uniform yardstick has been made applicable to all the
candidates, who participated in the selection process. Furthermore, the
14 of 20
LPA Bench of this Court has, while adjudicating LPA-1453-2019, already
gone into this aspect and rejected a similar argument. In LPA, it was the
contention of the appellants that they possess B.Sc. with Computer as a
subject from Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, and the University
has declared that B.Sc. degree with elective subjects of Computer
Science, Quantitative Technique passed from the said University be
recognized as equivalent with B.Sc. (Computer Science) degree.
However, the said submission was rejected by the LPA Bench, as is
apparent from the hereinafter extracted portion of the order dated
17.09.2019.
"Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends
that appellant No.1 in LPA-1453-2019 possesses B.Sc. Degree
with computer as a subject from Guru Nanak Dev University,
Amritsar, and the University has declared that B.Sc degree with
elective subjects of Computer Science, Quantitative Technique
passed from this University be recognized as equivalent with
B.Sc. (Computer Science) degree........
XXXXX
We are afraid, the reliance placed upon the Full Bench
judgment is totally mis-founded. The matter came up for
consideration before the Full Bench on account of two conflicting
Division Bench judgments in respect of the question - Whether
the candidates who have obtained the qualification of B.P.Ed.
could be considered eligible for the purpose of appointment as
Physical Training Instructor (PTI) for which the qualification
prescribed is Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.)? On
account of diversion of opinion of two Division Benches on the
aforesaid question, reference was made to a Full Bench and,
considering the same, it was held that candidates possessing
higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from
15 of 20
selection. It was observed, in the operative part, as under:-
27. From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed
judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing higher
qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from
consideration for selection. It is a different matter that
he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for
higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at
par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed
qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate having
better and higher qualification in the same line and
discipline would definitely result in breach of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India." (emphasis supplied)
Thus, it would be seen that the words "in the same line and
discipline" are the determining factors.
Admittedly, in the case in hand the appellants-petitioners
cannot be held to be possessing better and higher qualification in
the same line and discipline, rather they are claiming equivalence
on the basis of parameters conceived by themselves. It cannot be
disputed that the equivalence is to be considered and granted by
the respondent-authorities and cannot be claimed by the
appellants-petitioners themselves as a matter of right. It is to be
taken note of that selection process was conducted by a State level
Direct Recruitment Board comprising senior officers, who
considered the qualification as per the advertisement and, having
found that the appellants-petitioners do not possess either the
prescribed qualification or higher qualification in the same
stream and the qualification they possess cannot be equated with
the prescribed qualification, rejected their candidature. 'O' Level
Certificate of Information Technology from the Department of
Electronics Accreditation of Computer Course (DOEACC) or
National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology
(NIELIT) is a specialised course in the field of computer
education and, definitely, it cannot be held equivalent to computer
science studied as a general subject from any institute or
university. Whether the two can be considered equivalent or the
16 of 20
latter qualification as higher is no longer res integra and stands
settled by a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Yogesh Kumar vs. Government of NCT, (2003) 3 SCC 548. In
the said case, the question for consideration before the Hon'ble
Apex Court was - Whether B.Ed. was higher qualification than
Trained Teacher's Certificate (TTC)? The Hon'ble Apex Court,
after considering the issue, answered the same as under:-
"10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced
by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher
qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates
should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On
behalf of the applicants, it is pointed out before us that
Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially
trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas
for B.Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students
of classes above primary. B.Ed. degree holders, therefore,
cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification
suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools.
Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment
should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or
B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We
find sufficient logic and justification in the State
prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers
as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can
also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be
considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot
consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies
advertised, as eligible."
In the light of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted, as
suggested by learned counsel for the appellants, that the
qualification held by the appellants is higher than the prescribed
qualification, even then since under the recruitment policy the
respondent-department found it fit to prescribe a particular
qualification obtained from a specific institution or equivalent
17 of 20
institution recognized by Government of India or by any State
Government, the appellants cannot be held eligible for the
vacancies advertised with prescribed qualification."
21. Consequently, this Court does not find any material or reason
to take a divergent view from that taken by the LPA Bench, rather its
decision is binding on this Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation
in holding that the petitioners, merely on accounts of their possessing
degrees of B.Sc. (General) with Computer Science as a subject, are not
eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.
22. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the following
directions were issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
08.08.2022:-
"One of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the petitioners, who had applied for the post of
Intelligence Officer in the rank of Sub Inspector and Intelligence
Assistant in the rank of Constable, got degrees in B.Sc, Computer
Science which degrees were not accepted. It is submitted that
though the petitioners herein had studied Computer Science and
some of the petitioners had enrolled in the College for a degree in
B.Sc (Computer Science), their candidature was rejected with the
remarks that their degrees did not belong to B. Sc in computer
sciences.
Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the
candidature of the petitioners herein and others, was rejected
because their degrees were not in computer science as those were
in other ancillary subjects, whereas the persons who have been
appointed have their degrees in computer science with advance
study of their subject.
This court would like to peruse the record of those persons
who have been given appointment vis a vis their educational
qualification as against the petitioners herein who stand rejected.
18 of 20
It would then be clarified whether the rejection of the petitioners
herein is justified.
Let the record pertaining to the candidates who stand
selected having studied from Punjab Technical University,
Jalandhar, with the same qualifications/ subjects as stated by the
petitioners herein, be placed on record well before the adjourned
date........"
23. In compliance with the directions (supra), an additional
affidavit dated 22.11.2022 of Mr. Charanjit Singh, I.P.S., Assistant
Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Intelligence, Punjab, was filed
before this Court. It was disclosed in the affidavit that 96 candidates had
joined as Sub-Inspector, out of whom, 09 candidates had resigned and 02
candidates had died. In this way, 85 candidates had consumed the post of
Sub-Inspector. The educational certificates of these selected candidates
were also annexed with the affidavit to substantiate that only candidates
possessing the essential educational qualifications were selected and no
relaxation whatsoever was given. Learned counsel for the petitioners have
also remained unable to point out any anomaly in the educational
certificates of the selected candidates.
24. The final issue requiring adjudication emanates from
issuance of fresh/corrected degrees of B.Sc. (Computer Science) to 2/3
petitioners by the University(ies) concerned, which according to those
petitioners makes them eligible for appointment to the advertised posts.
There is no wrangle to the fact that these fresh/corrected degrees were
issued only during pendency of these writ petitions, and after completion
of the entire selection process. Therefore, the respondents cannot be
19 of 20
faulted for rejecting petitioners' candidature on the basis of qualifications
held by them at the relevant time. The concluded selection process of
2016-2017 cannot be reopened, particularly in the absence of any fault on
the part of the respondents.
FINAL ORDER
25. In summa, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions,
and the same are accordingly dismissed.
26. Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
27. A photocopy of this order be placed on file of each
connected case.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
January 08, 2026 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
20 of 20
