IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

233 Date of decision: 26.08.2025 1. CWP-14254-2022 (O&M)

Nipun Syal and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents

2. CWP-15639-2022 (O&M)

Ankur Kumar Choudhari and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate with Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in both the cases.

Mr. T.P.S. Walia, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP-14254-2022 and for the respondents in CWP-15639-2022.

Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate with Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP-14254-2022.

Mr. G.S. Thind, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-14254-2022.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of CWPNos.14254 and 15639 of 2022, as they arise out of a similar factual matrix and involve adjudication of common questions of law. However, for the sake of brevity, facts are taken from CWP-14254-2022.

2. The present writ petition is preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for selection and appointment to the posts for Building Inspector(Technical) with the Department of Local Government, in view of their equal or higher academic qualifications as against the condition put forth in advertisement No.202245 to 202246 dated

17.06.2022.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.2-Punjab Public Service Commission(PPSC) issued advertisement No.202245 to 202246 dated 17.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) for a total of 157 posts for Building Inspector (Technical) with respondent-Department. Clause 4 of the said advertisement laid down essential qualifications for application to the said post i.e.- (i) Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship or higher, and (ii) Matric Level Punjabi.

4. Only online applications were allowed by the respondent- PPSC. However, the petitioners were unable to fill the online application as it was mandatory to check the Diploma in Architecture/Architecture Assistantship qualification and there was no provision for entering any higher qualifications. Claiming that they had identical or high qualification in the field of Civil Engineering, the petitioners moved a representation dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure P-5), however, to no avail. Hence, the present petition.

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that while the advertisement (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent-PPSC listed diploma in Architecture as an essential qualification to be considered for the post of Building Inspector(Technical), the petitioners have diplomas and/or degrees in Civil Engineering (Annexure P-2 to P- 4) which makes them eligible to be considered for the said post as well. Both of the said qualifications pertain to a similar field/trade or specialisation. Learned counsel further refers to the judgment passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in CWP No.15308 of 2010, titled as Navjiwan vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 20.05.2014 (Annexure P-8) and submits that in a similar controversy, this Court has directed Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh to ascertain whether the degrees and diplomas in Civil Engineering as equivalent to three-year diploma in Architecture with respect to the post of Junior Draftsman (Mechanical). Accordingly, a three-member expert committee was constituted which presented a report (Annexure P-7) stating that “three years diploma in Architectural Assistantship and three years Diploma in Civil Engineering can be considered as higher qualification of the similar field/trade or specialization as that of the certificate in Civil/Mechanical Draftsman.” Moreover, the aforesaid report also states that the entire syllabus of Diploma in Architecture Assistantship is also being taught in Dipl