Chitranshu Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the action of respondent No.3 in denying the grant of 4 marks to the petitioner under the head of Additional Qualification carrying 10% weightage and further to direct them to award the same to him.

¶16

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had participated for the post of Sub Inspector (Male) and scored 49.6 marks, however despite having graduated in Information Technology/B. Tech, 4 marks were not granted to him, which ought to have been, it being equivalent to a degree in Computer Science or Computer Engineering, as was the requirement in the Advertisement dated 16.04.2018, Annexure P-1.

¶17

Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner did not possess the required degree to qualify for the additional 4 marks, thus prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.24 17:17 I am the author of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

CWP-13579-2019(O&M)

¶22

In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment passed in Devender Bhaskar vs. State of Haryana , (2024) 19 SCC 506, wherein the order of High Court holding the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, was quashed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, while relying on a plethora of judgments, including Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (1975) 3 SCC 76, J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others , (1990) 1 SCC 288, State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun , (2002) 6 SCC 252, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr. , (2009) 1 SCC 610, and Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. , (2019) 2 SCC 404, relevant paras whereof read thus:

¶23

“21. In Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India [Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454] , it was held that the question regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.

¶24

In J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P. [J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P., (1990) 1 SCC 288 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 76] this Court held that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts.

¶25

In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun [State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 859 : 5 SCEC 268] this Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held thus:

¶26

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.24 17:17 I am the author of this document

¶27

CWP-13579-2019(O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

“13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.”

¶30

In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal [Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610 : 3 SCEC 452] this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognised as such.

¶31

In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] , it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.”

¶32

Significantly, a candidate is required to have conformed to the

¶33

qualifications and other conditions that are essential for consideration of appointment to the post, as has been advertised. It is not for this Court to venture into the equivalence of the degrees, thus in light of the judgment referred to hereinabove, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Other misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of

¶35

accordingly.

¶36

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 21, 2026. JUDGE Rajender

¶37

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶38

RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.24 17:17 I am the author of this document

Chitranshu v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitranshu v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ran Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Arun Sharma and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ajay Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs District Red Cross Society, Narnaul and Ors.

Rohtash Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.