205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 Lakhvinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Amrinder Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.5.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Moga whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Beldar was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner applied for the post of Beldar with the respondent-Corporation in pursuance of the relevant advertisement (Annexure P-9). The said advertisement also laid down the eligibility criteria which included clearing middle school level Punjabi language examination. However, the petitioner had cleared the examination for Punjabi language both at matriculation and senior secondary level, as discernible from the certificates issued by the Punjab School Education Board (Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively). Thereafter, he also successfully completed one year course conducted by the Department of Fruit Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, as also discernible from the certificate dated 24.08.2015 (Annexure P-4). In spite of being eligible for appointment as Beldar, the respondent-Corporation rejected his claim vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure P-17) stating that the petitioner failed to annex his 8^th class certificate with his application. The petitioner clearly possesses higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed by the advertisement (Annexure P-9).

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the respondent-Corporation in its capacity as the employer, is best qualified to lay down the eligibility criteria for recruitment. The petitioner has not provided the requisite certificate for 8^th class certificate with Punjabi as one of the elective subjects, which was specifically sought in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure P-9). Further, the merit list was prepared only on the basis of these certificates submitted by the candidates. Therefore, he was justly not considered for appointment. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manpreet Shrivastava vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.25978 of 2021 decided on 16.02.2022 and the Chhatisgarh High Court in Pankaj Kumar Pankaj and others vs. State Bank of India and others decided on

16.12.2020. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner has in fact qualified Punjabi language examinations conducted by the Punjab State Education Board for both 10^th class and 12^th class, which is higher than the minimum prescribed benchmark.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the advertisement (Annexure P-9) prescribes 8^th class level qualification in Punjabi language as the minimum prescribed benchmark. The relevant eligibility criteria is reproduced below:

“A) xxx xxx xxx

8) As per the notification dated 04.11.2020, No. G.S.R.75/const/Art.309/Amd(7)2022 issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, the amendment made in Group-D in the service rules, 1963 is as under:-

Provided that no person shall be appointed any post in any service by direct appointment unless he has passed a qualifying test of Punjabi language equivalent to middle class with at least fifty percent marks to be conduct by the respective recruit agencies in addition to competitive examination. The test of Punjabi language shall be a mandatory qualifying test and failure to secure a minimum of fif