Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Appointment Claim of Ex-Serviceman for CHT and HT Posts; Holds Minimum Graduation Marks Condition Mandatory as per Advertisement
Case Name: Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
Citation: CWP-27485-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that eligibility conditions prescribed in the recruitment advertisement are mandatory and binding, and that a candidate who does not fulfil the minimum requirement of securing 50% marks in graduation cannot claim consideration for appointment to the posts of Centre Head Teacher and Head Teacher. The Court held that qualifications acquired subsequently or rules applicable to other categories cannot override the eligibility criteria expressly stipulated in the advertisement.
Summary: The writ petition challenged the order dated 29.10.2022 whereby the petitioner’s claim for appointment to the posts of Centre Head Teacher (CHT) and Head Teacher (HT) was rejected on the ground that he had not secured 50% marks in graduation. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, had applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.08.2021 issued by the State of Punjab for filling backlog vacancies of CHT and HT, including posts reserved for ex-servicemen (General category).
As per the advertisement, eligibility for appointment required possession of a Bachelor’s Degree with a minimum of 50% marks for general category candidates. The petitioner had secured 47.45% marks in graduation. His earlier writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide his representation, which ultimately resulted in rejection of his claim, leading to the present petition.
The petitioner contended that the rules applicable at the time of his initial appointment as ETT teacher ought to govern his eligibility, that his post-graduate qualification should be considered, and that a graduation certificate relied upon by him entitled him to consideration. He also alleged discriminatory treatment by citing another candidate who was allegedly considered on similar grounds.
The Court rejected these submissions, holding that the rules and eligibility criteria applicable on the date of issuance of the recruitment advertisement alone govern the selection process. It held that post-graduate qualifications cannot substitute the mandatory requirement of securing minimum marks in graduation. The Court further held that the graduation certificate relied upon by the petitioner could not override the express terms of the advertisement, and that alleged consideration of another candidate under a different recruitment process could not confer any enforceable right.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the validity of the eligibility condition itself and therefore could not seek relaxation contrary to the advertisement.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The order dated 29.10.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appointment to the posts of Centre Head Teacher and Head Teacher was upheld.