The High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the Haryana Technical Education Department's Service Rules, 2019. The court held that prescribing qualifications for lecturer posts is the employer's domain and dismissed the plea that M.Sc. holders were unfairly excluded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-6708-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -1-
219 (3 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
219-1 CWP-6708-2021 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 22.07.2026
MANOJ AND ANOTHER
......PETITIONERS
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.........RESPONDENTS
219-2 CWP-3937-2022 (O&M) RITU RANI ......PETITIONERS Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
.........RESPONDENTS 219-3 CWP-31333-2025 (O&M) RAJIV KUMAR AND OTHERS
......PETITIONERS
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
.........RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr.Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP-6708-2021).
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner (CWP-3937-2022)
Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate, for Ms. Sakshi Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP-31333-2025).
NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-6708-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -2-
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Balvinder Sangwan (through video conferencing) & Ms. Enayat Dang, Advocates, for the respondent-HPSC (in CWP-3937-2022).
Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondent-HPSC (in CWP-31333-2025).
Mr. Salil Sablok, Advocate, for the respondent-UGC (in CWP-3937-2022).
*****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL)
1 . In the present bunch of three petitions, the challenge is to the Haryana Technical Education Department (Group B) Service Rules, 2019 (for short ‘2019 Rules’). The challenge has been raised qua the qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer in Medical Laboratory Technology (MLT) on the ground that any candidates having M.SC (MLT) should be declared only and not the candidates who have a Bachelor's or Master's Degree in Technology.
2 . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the nature of the job required to be performed by the Senior Lecturers in Medical Laboratory Technology, for which the Rules of 2019 apply, candidate possessing M.Sc. in Medical Laboratory Technology would be much better so as to teach the students about the subjects included in the curriculum as compared to a candidate who posses a degree in Engineering or Technology.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as an alternative qualification, NET/Ph.D. in the subject of Medical Laboratory Technology has been prescribed under the 2019 Rules, whereas UGC does
NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-6708-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -3-
not conduct the NET exam for the subject of Medical Laboratory Technology as MLT is not mentioned in the list of subjects of UGC NET Exam nor Ph.D is available for such subject. Hence, the alternative qualifications have been prescribed in 2019 Rules without any application of mind.
3 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that the domain to prescribe the qualification for the post vests with the employer and unless and until such exercise undertaken by the employer is challenged on the ground of mala fides or is shown to have been tailor-made for a specific class of persons, the same cannot be challenged by a prospective candidate who seeks selection/appointment to the post in question.
3.1 The learned State counsel further submits that it is not the case that the petitioners have been rendered ineligible in view of the impugned Rules; rather, what has been challenged is the enlargement of the zone of consideration by making candidates possessing Bachelor's/Master's Degrees in Technology eligible for the said post.
3.2 Learned State counsel further submits that such a restriction sought to be upon the State for prescribing a particular qualification for a post in question is an imposition of fetters upon the State which prayer is liable to be rejected.
4 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book carefully.
5 . It is a settled principle of law that prescribing qualifications for
NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-6708-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -4-
recruitment to a particular post is within the domain of the employer. The employer is best suited to determine what kind of candidates, if allowed to compete, can best perform the duties of the post in question. Neither the candidate nor even the Court can substitute the opinion of the employer. Reliance can be placed in this regard upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others (2019) 2 SCC 404. The relevant paragraph No. 22 thereof reads as under:-
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
“22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court
NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-6708-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -5-
was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.”
(Emphasis supplied)
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
6 . Further, the challenge can only be raised to a rule if the same is ultra vires on the ground that the authority enacting such rule did not have the jurisdiction, or that the rule so enacted is against the public policy or is contrary to any other law already in existence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that the present case falls under any of the aforesaid grounds.
7 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no NET in the field of Medical Laboratory Technology or Ph.D. in the field of Medical Laboratory Technology; hence, the petitioners will be rendered ineligible.
8 . It may be noticed that the respondents on record stated that there is a Ph.D. in the subject of Medical Laboratory Technology and candidates with such qualification have already applied. Therefore, merely because the petitioners do not possess the said qualification and such qualifications is already possessed by the other aspirants to the said post, the rule cannot be declared ultra vires.
9 . It may be noticed that mere ineligibility to apply under a rule does not render the rule ultra vires.
10. Keeping in view the above, as per the settled principles of law,
NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-6708-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -6-
once the State, in its wisdom, has prescribed a particular qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Medical Laboratory Technology, merely because the petitioners do not fulfil the qualification cannot be a ground to set aside the same, unless and until the Rules are held to be ultra vires, which fact has also not been proved, keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove.
11. The petitions stand dismissed.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other
connected cases.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE
JULY 22, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE
Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No
NITIN 2026.07.27 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prescription of M.Sc. vs. Technology degrees for Lecturer posts in Medical Laboratory Technology is within the domain of the employer.
Whether the State prescription of qualifications renders the petitioner ineligible unless shown to be ultra vires.
Whether judicial review can determine the equivalence of educational qualifications for recruitment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and othersReferred¶42
Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others (2019) 2 SCC 404 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj and another
Ritu Rani
Rajiv Kumar and others
State of Haryana and another
Harsimran Singh Sethi
Amarinder Singh Grewal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
