IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : November 10, 2025 SUBHASH GUPTA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Livleen Brar, Advocate, for Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, A.A.G., Punjab.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), along with all consequential benefits, including fixation of seniority from the date of appointment of other similarly situated candidates. 2. In support of his claim for appointment, the petitioner contends that he has successfully completed the Electrical Mechanician (Power/Weapon) Qualifying Course in the Electrical Engineering Training Establishment of the Indian Navy, INS VALSURA, during the period from 22.03.1999 to 10.02.2001. It is his assertion that the said course has been recognized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, vide Notification dated 17.05.1989, as being equivalent to a Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized Indian Polytechnic. On this basis, the petitioner asserts entitlement to the relief sought.

3. Succinctly stated, the Public Welfare Department (Building and Roads Branch) had issued an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), Junior Engineer (Electrical), and Junior Engineer (Horticulture). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). He appeared in the written examination and secured 60 marks but was not offered appointment. According to the respondents, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed educational qualification.

4. A perusal of the advertisement reveals that the essential educational qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was “Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognized Institution.” The record vividly indicates that the petitioner does not possess this prescribed educational qualification, but instead holds an equivalent qualification, as pleaded. The advertisement, however, does not stipulate that candidates possessing equivalent qualifications would be considered eligible for selection.

The relevant portion of the advertisement is extracted hereunder:- “2. The educational qualifications/experience and pay scale is as follows:-

5. It is open neither for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by him/her is equivalent, nor for the employer to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection process or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified. This view gathers strength from the verdict dated 08.08.2019, drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi & Ors. Vs. Aarya K. Babu & Anr.”, 2019 (4) SCT 54 The relevant paragraph of the said verdict is extracted hereunder:- “13. Though we have taken note of the said contention we are unable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well-established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include certain qualifications which have not been included in the Notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open fo