In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

1.

Civil Writ Petition No. 26560 of 2017

Sandeep Kumar

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

... Respondent(s)

AND

2.

Civil Writ Petition No. 16209 of 2018 (O&M)

Gurinder Singh

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Another

... Respondent(s)

DATE OF DECISION: 20.04.2021

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner (In CWP-26560-2017).

Mr. Jag Nahar Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner (In CWP-16209-2018).

Ms. Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General,

Punjab, for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

By this order, Civil Writ Petition No. 26560 of 2017 and 16209

of 2018 shall stand disposed of. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem

that both these writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common

order.

2.

In both these writ petitions, each of the petitioners was

appointed on compassionate basis on 24.12.2015. The petitioners have

claimed that they possess the minimum academic qualification as they have

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2021.04.28 11:39

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No. 26560 of 2017 AND

2

Civil Writ Petition No. 16209 of 2018 (O&M)

graduated from Eastern Institute of Integral Learning in Management

University, Sikkim (for short “EIILM”). The petitioners were appointed

subject to verification of their academic qualification. On verification, the

respondents found that the graduation degree of the petitioners is not

recognized by the University Grants Commission/Distance Educational

Council. On the basis thereof, the services of the petitioners have been

dispensed with.

3.

In response to the notice of motion, a written statement has

been filed contending that the petitioners are not eligible as they do not

possess valid graduation degrees.

4.

This Bench has heard learned counsel for the parties at length

and with their able assistance, perused the paper books.

5.

Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners contend that as

per the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Services Class-III Rules, 1977

(hereinafter referred to as “the 1977 Rules”), the minimum academic

qualification required for being appointed to the post of Clerk is matric.

They, hence, contend that even if the petitioners do not possess a recognized

graduation degree, still their services cannot be dispensed with. They further

contend that in view of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in

Karamjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others 2019 (3) SCT 162, since the

petitioners got admission before the cut-off date i.e. 01.11.2012, therefore,

their services cannot be dispensed with.

6.

Per contra, Ms. Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General,

Punjab, has contended that the petitioners do not possess a valid graduation

degree, therefore, they are not entitled to continue in service as their

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2021.04.28 11:39

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No. 26560 of 2017 AND

3

Civil Writ Petition No. 16209 of 2018 (O&M)

appointment was subject to the verification of their academic testimonials.

7.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Bench is of

the view that the matter is required to be remitted back to the respondents to

pass a fresh order. Hence, it would not be appropriate to examine the

contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners in detail. However, the

brief reasons for remitting the matter back to the respondents are as under:

1)

As regards the arguments of learned counsel that as per

the 1977 Rules, the petitioners are not required to be graduate, it is

appropriate to notice that in the appointment letter itself, it has been

specifically stated that the services of the petitioners shall be

governed by the 1977 Rules and the Punjab Civil Services (General

and Common Conditions) Rul