117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.05.2026 Surinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bahul Bunger, Advocate for the respondent-PSPCL.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the advertisement No. CRA 316/26 dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) for the posts of Junior Engineer/Electrical in the respondent- Department. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to finally submit the application form and direct the respondents to reopen/activate the online portal for the petitioner and also to decide the representation dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-9).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the respondent-Corporation issued advertisement No.CRA-316/26 dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer/Electrical. The petitioner passed matriculation and senior secondary and obtained a three years’ diploma in Electrical Engineering with Second Division in May, 2013 as discernible from Annexure P-4. Further, 63 posts were reserved for SC (MZB) category and petitioner belongs to the aforesaid category, attempted to submit the online application form and successfully registered on 03.05.2026 as discernible from Annexure P-6. Upon final submission, the system declared that the petitioner was not eligible stating that minimum percentage required in diploma for the post is 60%. As such, no relaxation in filling forms were given to SC (MZB) category despite 50% reservation. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-9) for permission to submit the form but no action was taken. The last date for online submission was 10.05.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned advertisement provides excessive and unconstitutional requirement of 60% marks for diploma holder which is contrary to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation refers to the eligibility criteria under Clause 2 of the advertisement at Page 23 and submits that the basic and professional qualification for the post of Junior Engineer/Electrical is provided. It is contended that the criteria satisfies the principle of reasonable classification, inasmuch as diploma holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering were also made eligible to apply and compete alongside B.E./B.Tech degree holders, even though, subject to securing a minimum of 60% marks, whereas, the minimum requirement for B.E./B.Tech (Electrical) candidates was 50% marks. The aforesaid criteria is justified on account of the clear distinction in the level of qualification between a diploma and a degree. A B.E./B.Tech degree in engineering is a higher qualification than a diploma, therefore, prescribing a higher minimum percentage requirement of more than 60% for diploma holders does not amount to discrimination, rather, it advances the principle of meritocracy, which is the foundation of public employment ensuring that selection is based on merit and suitability.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement (Annexure P-5) is reproduced as under:-

“Eligibility Criteria

2.1 Basic and Processional Qualification:

TABLE-B Note: Candidate(s) must have passed above qualification upto last date of Registration/Submission of onlince application.”

5. The basic and professional qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) required a full-time regular diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering with a min