Manpreet Singh and Others Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

….PETITIONERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. ….RESPONDENT (5) CWP-5218-2024 (O&M) GURPYAR SINGH AND OTHERS ….PETITIONERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. ….RESPONDENTS (6) CWP-8213-2025 (O&M) CHAND CHOPRA AND ANOTHER ….PETITIONERS Vs. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD & ORS.

¶25

….RESPONDENT (7) CWP-4643-2025 (O&M) NIPUN SYAL AND OTHERS

¶26

….PETITIONERS Vs.

¶27

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

¶28

….RESPONDENTS

¶29

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -3 -

¶31

(8) CWP-11750-2025 (O&M)

RACHIT JAIN

….PETITIONER

Vs.

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

¶36

….RESPONDENTS 9) CWP-14449-2025 (O&M)

¶37

NAVJOT SINGH AND OTHERS

¶38

….PETITIONERS Vs.

¶39

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

¶40

….RESPONDENTS

¶41

10) CWP-18142-2025 (O&M)

¶42

GURPREET KAUR AND OTHERS

¶43

….PETITIONERS Vs.

¶44

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

¶45

….RESPONDENTS

¶46

11) CWP-30861-2025 (O&M)

KIRTI

….PETITIONER

Vs.

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD

¶51

….RESPONDENT

¶52

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶54

-4 -

¶55

219 12) CWP-4330-2024 (O&M)

YUVRAJ SHARMA

….PETITIONER

Vs.

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD

¶60

...RESPONDENT

¶61

13) CWP-13355-2025 (O&M)

¶62

SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶63

….PETITIONERS

¶64

Vs.

¶65

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD

¶66

….RESPONDENT

¶67

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶68

Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP No. 7405-2023).

¶69

Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal & Mr. Pankaj Bains, Advocates, for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No. 11750-2025).

¶70

Mr. Anil Rana, Advocate, for Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner (s) (in CWP Nos. 5218 and 4643 of 2024).

¶71

Mr. Avikaran Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner (s) (in CWP-19512-2025). Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner (s) (in CWP Nos. 4575-2024, 14449 & 18142-2025).

¶72

Mr. H.S Saini, Advocate, for the applicant (in CM No. 20177-2024 in CWP-4643-2024).

¶73

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶74

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶75

-5 -

¶76

Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner (s) (in CWP-8213-2025).

¶77

Mr. Bhavpreet Singh Dhatt, Advocate, for the petitioners (in CWP Nos. 5227, 9027 and 4330 of 2024).

¶78

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab, with Mr. Sangam Garg, Advocate, for the respondent-PSPCL.

¶79

Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jasman Singh Gill, Advocate, for the respondents-PSPCL. Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Randeep Singh Gill, Advocate, for the private respondents.

¶80

Mr. Ferry Sofat, Advocate, for the respondent-PSPCL (in CWP-7405-2023).

¶81

Mr. Vipin Pal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶82

Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3 (in CWP-19512-2025).

¶83

Mr. Vishal Satija, Advocate, for the respondent-PSPCL (in CWP-18142-2025).

¶84

Ms. Avin Jandhu & Mr. Sunkalp, Advocates, for the respondent-PSPCL (in CWP-4575-2024).

¶85

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the respondent-PSPCL.

¶86

Mr. Opinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate, for the respondents (in CWP Nos. 9027 & 5218 of 2024).

¶87

Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for the respondents-PSPCL (in CWP Nos. 7405 & 5227 of 2023).

¶88

*****

¶89

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.(ORAL)

¶90

CM-13325-CWP-2025 IN CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) (i ) Present application has been filed for impleading the applicant

¶91

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶92

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -6 -

¶93

Diksha Sharma, son of Sandeep Kumar as respondent No. 6 in this accompanying petition.

¶94

(ii) Notice of the application to the opposite counsel.

¶95

(iii) Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application.

¶96

(iv) Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed. The applicant Diksha Sharma, son of Sandeep Kumar is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 6 in the accompanying petition. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶97

CM-20177-CWP-2024 IN CWP-4643-2024 (O&M)

¶98

(i ) Present application has been filed for impleading the applicants as respondents No. 3 to 7 in this accompanying petition.

¶99

(ii) Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.

¶100

(iii) Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application.

¶101

(iv) Keeping in view the averments made in the application made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No. 3 to 7 in the accompanying petition. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶102

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶103

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶104

-7 -

¶105

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶106

1 . By this common order, a bunch of 13 writ petitions, the details whereof are given in the heading of this order, are being disposed of together, as they involve the same question of law and arise out of similar facts.

¶107

2 . In the present bunch of petitions, the question raised is whether the degree-holders can be excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer (Sub-Station) and Junior Engineer (Civil) as advertised by the respondents. Before proceeding to decide the issue, it may be noticed that vide interim order dated 21.02.2024, all the petitioners who were degreeholders had already been allowed to participate in the selection process and they have already participated therein, subject to the adjudication of the case.

¶108

3 . The challenge raised in the writ petitions is to Clause IX(vii) of Technical Services Category-3 Regulations, 1996 the amendment dated 10.02.2023 of the PSPCL, a copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-7, according to which, though degree-holders were eligible prior to the said amendment of the rules but according to the amendment carried out in 2023 the eligibility was restricted only to those degree-holders who also possessed a diploma for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical), Junior Engineer (Sub-Station) and Junior Engineer (Civil).

¶109

4 . After the amendment dated 10.02.2023 of 1996 Rules the posts were also advertised by the Department vide advertisement dated 05.02.2024, attached as Annexure A-1. As noticed earlier, the petitioners

¶110

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶111

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -8 -

¶112

were allowed to compete for the said posts provisionally, in which process they have already participated.

¶113

5 . Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to 10.02.2023, the degree-holders were eligible for the posts in question, but by the amendment dated 10.02.2023 by PSPCL only those degreeholders who also possessed a Full time regular 3/4 years Diploma were made eligible. The said amendment has again been done away with on 27.03.2026 by Circular No. 5/2026, whereby the respondents have reverted to the position which existed prior to the amendment dated 10.02.2023 done to 1996 Rules.

¶114

5.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once the respondents themselves found the amendment done in 2023 to be incorrect and prejudicial to a large number of degree-holders, and reverted to the position as it existed prior to 10.02.2023, coupled with the fact that the petitioners, who are degree-holders, have already participated in the selection process, they ought to be treated as eligible for the purpose of the present advertisement.

¶115

5.2 Learned Senior Counsel also submits that if the posts are advertised now, the petitioners are eligible, and as the selection is yet to be finalized and the 1996 Rules have already been amended in 2026 again, the petitioners deserve to be declared eligible for the said posts.

¶116

6 . The learned State counsel concedes the factum of the eligibility of the petitioners prior to 10.02.2023 and subsequent to 27.03.2026, and only submits that on the date when the advertisement was issued, the amendment dated 10.02.2023 to 1996 Rules was in operation,

¶117

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶118

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -9 -

¶119

according to which only those degree-holders possessing a diploma were eligible. Therefore, though the petitioners have already been allowed to compete for the posts provisionally, their eligibility still needs to be adjudicated, even though their grievance qua the amendment dated 10.02.2023 already stands redressed by the subsequent amendment of the Rules on 27.03.2026.

¶120

6.1 Mr. Gurminder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, submits that the only reason for amending the 1996 Rules in 2026 was that the issue qua 2023 amendment were pending consideration of the Court and the selection could not be finalized. According to him, the amendment to 1996 Rules as done in 2026 cannot be treated as voluntary but as one brought about under compulsion. Therefore, such amendment done in 2026 should not come to the rescue of the petitioners to claim eligibility even qua the present advertisement, when concededly the amendment dated 10.02.2023 was in operation, and consequently, the petitioners cannot be treated as eligible for the present advertisement. .

¶121

7 . Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even qua the present advertisement, a corrigendum has already been issued by the respondents making the petitioners eligible, and since the said corrigendum has not been challenged by the private respondents, no question regarding the eligibility of the petitioners survives, and therefore, the petitioners should be treated as eligible for all intents and purposes.

¶122

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶123

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -10-

¶124

8 . We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully.

¶125

9 . It may be noticed that prior to 10.02.2023, under the 1996 Rules then in force, the petitioners were eligible to compete for the posts in question. It was only on 10.02.2023 that the 1996 Rules were amended to oust the degree-holders who did not possess a diploma from the zone of consideration. Though the advertisement was issued when the amended 1996 Rules brought into force on 10.02.2023 were in operation, the subsequent developments cannot be ignored while deciding the present petitions.

¶126

10. During the pendency of the present petitions, not only the petitioners were allowed to compete provisionally for the posts, but the Government also took a conscious decision by issuing a corrigendum permitting degree-holders, who did not possess a full time regular 3/4 years diploma, to be treated as eligible to compete for the posts. The said corrigendum is not under challenge in the present proceedings. Meaning thereby, even under the present advertisement dated 05.02.2024, the petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process provisionally, subject to the decision of these cases.

¶127

11. Further, the amendment dated 10.02.2023 to 1996 Rules has been withdrawn by the respondents vide notification dated 27.03.2026. Hence, as of now, under the 1996 Rules presently in force, the petitioners are once again eligible.

¶128

12. The question which arises is whether, in such circumstances, coupled with the fact that the petitioners had already participated

¶129

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶130

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -11-

¶131

provisionally under the orders of this Court in the interim, they should be treated as eligible so that the selection process may be taken to its logical conclusion. Once the only deficiency attributed to the petitioners was that they did not possess a diploma, despite holding the higher qualification of a degree in the same field they can certainly compete for the posts, especially when the requirement of possessing a diploma in addition to a degree has already been done away with by the State during the pendency of the selection process itself.

¶132

13. The same question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma and others vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another (2021) 16 SCC 340 , wherein similarly situated petitioners, who were claiming consideration on the basis of their degree qualification, were held eligible to compete for the said posts.

¶133

14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has not been able to dispute the aforesaid proposition. However, it has been argued that subsequent to the judgment in Puneet Sharma's case (supra) , the same issue has again been considered in Mohd. Fizon Mansuri and others vs. State of Bihar and others , arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12236 of 2025 , decided on 16.01.2026, wherein consideration was confined only to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules, excluding higher qualifications. . 15. Even the subsequent Bench, while considering Puneet Sharma's case (supra) , observed that where the candidates were eligible prior to the amendment and, during the pendency of the selection process,

¶134

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶135

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -12-

¶136

the Rules were again amended making them eligible, and they possessed only a higher qualification in the same discipline, namely, a degree in Electrical Engineering, which is also possessed by the petitioners herein, the judgment in Puneet Sharma's case (supra) stood on different facts.

¶137

Paragraph 58 of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶138

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶139

“ 58. In Puneet Sharma & Ors. v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Anr., (2021) 16 SCC 340 , the issue was whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is a technically higher qualification than a diploma in that discipline and whether degree-holders would be eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules. The Supreme Court took into consideration the decisions in Jyoti KK (supra), Anita (supra), Zahoor Ahmed (supra) and observed that these were quite different from the facts of this case and permitted degree-holders to apply only because the recruitment rules themselves contemplated such inclusion through express sub- quotas. The Court also relied on a subsequent amendment to the rules declaring that those with higher qualifications are also entitled to apply or be considered for appointment, and thus, allowed the degree-holders also to participate.”

¶140

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶141

16. Hence, the judgment in Puneet Sharma's case (supra) would be applicable to the facts of the present case, as distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Fizon Mansuri's case (supra).

¶142

17. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the present petitions are allowed to the extent that the challenge to the amendment

¶143

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶144

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases -13-

¶145

dated 10.02.2023 to 1996 Rules has been rendered infructuous in view of the subsequent amendment to the 1996 Rules dated 27.03.2026 granting eligibility to degree-holders who do not possess a diploma.

¶146

18. So far as the present advertisement is concerned, since the petitioners had already participated during the pendency of the present writ petitions and the selection is yet to be finalized, and before the finalization of the selection the 1996 Rules were amended once again making the petitioners eligible in view of the qualifications possessed by them, they shall be treated as eligible for the purpose of the present advertisement and their results shall be declared along with those of the other candidates who participated in the selection process. It is made clear that the selection shall be finalized strictly on the basis of merit.

¶147

19. Further, once the corrigendum issued to the Amendment dated 05.02.2024 permitted all degree-holders who did not possess a diploma to participate, such candidates who have already participated pursuant to the said corrigendum, which is not under challenge, shall also be treated as eligible.

¶148

20. The argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents that the corrigendum and the amendment to 1996 Rules as done in March 2026, during the pendency of the selection process only because of the pendency of the writ petitions is not a valid amendment.

¶149

21. It may be noticed that the amendment dated 27.03.2026 is not under challenge before this Court even as of now. In the absence of any challenge to the amendment to 1996 Rules which was carried out about three months ago, such an argument cannot be permitted to influence the

¶150

NITIN 2026.07.17 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶151

CWP-7405-2023 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶152

-14-

¶153

present decision. However, if the respondents intend to challenge the same, they shall be at liberty to avail of their remedies before the appropriate Forum. It is made clear that the present order shall govern only qua the selection process in respect whereof the result is yet to be declared. Any selection which has already been finalized shall not be reopened on the basis of the present order.

¶154

22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶155

disposed of.

¶156

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶157

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)

¶158

JULY 07, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) nitin JUDGE

¶159

Whether Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No