CWP No. 12000 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12000 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: July 12, 2010 Balwinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Advocate, with Ms. Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as Physical Training Instructor. 2. It has been contended that the petitioner passed senior secondary examination from Punjab School Education Board. The petitioner acquired qualification of Bachelor of Arts from Panjab University. The petitioner acquired qualification of Bachelor of Physical Education also. The relevant certificates have been placed on record as Annexure P-1 to P-3 respectively. 175 posts of PTIs were initially advertised. Subsequently, the number of posts were increased to 849 vide a CWP No. 12000 of 2010 2 corrigendum dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure P-5). 3. The petitioner claims to be fully eligible and qualified for selection and, therefore, applied for appointment as PTI. The application form of the petitioner was scrutinized, however, the same was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner is not possessing the requisite qualification as per advertisement Annexure P-4 dated 23.10.2006. 4. Be that as it may, public notice was published by the respondent stating that all the male candidates who have applied in general category and have 57.489 marks, should contact the office for scrutiny of documents. Result of selected candidates was published on 19.11.2006, however, the claim of the petitioner was not considered for selection and appointment as PTI on the ground that the petitioner is possessing qualification of “Bachelor of Physical Education” whereas the qualification of “Certificate in Physical Education” is required for the post of PTI. Final merit list was published on 19.11.2006. 5. In the contention of the learned counsel, the petitioner has higher qualification in the relevant field and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be ignored on the ground that lower qualification is required for the post of PTI. The petitioner represented repeatedly indicating to the respondents that a number of posts were lying vacant and the petitioner be considered for selection and appointment against the said post. The petitioner, however, was informed that the Election Commission has imposed a ban on issuance of fresh appointments. 6. Learned counsel contends that after the election process had concluded, the petitioner and others went on representing on the ground that posts of PTIs were lying vacant and they should be appointed. CWP No. 12000 of 2010 3 7. Be that as it may, learned counsel contends that the issue was brought to this Court by persons identically placed as the petitioner. A Full bench of this Court has considered the issue while dealing with CWP No. 451 of 2008 titled Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others and has allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 05.02.2010. 8. Notice of motion. 9. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of State of Punjab. 10. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being taken up for final disposal today itself, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Learned counsel for the State states that indeed the issue is covered by judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra). 12. In the judgment rendered in Manjit Singh's case (supra), following has been held:- “The distinction sought to be created to deny eligibility is arbitrary and illusory. It goes without saying that the higher qualification provides better knowledge, better sense and in sight and equip the person with better understanding of the issues and problems. It cannot be a “bane” but has to be a “boon” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 606 had the occasion to consider whether the higher qualification than 8th standard prescribed for the post of Peon CWP No. 12000 of 2010 4 renders a candidate ineligible. Examining the issue, it is observed as under:- “21.A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.” 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. The reference is answered accordingly.” 13. In view of the law settled by this Court in Manjit Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed in the same terms. The respondents accordingly are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment in terms of the judgment, relevant portion whereof has CWP No. 12000 of 2010 5 been extracted above. 14. Needful be done within 4 months from today. 12.07.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?