Relaxing Eligibility Criteria On Equity Basis Is Beyond Law, Courts Exercising Equitable Jurisdiction Must Be Vigilant Of Overreach: P&H HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while exercising equitable jurisdiction Court cannot relax the eligibility criteria required for the admission.

The plea was filed challenging the order to surrender admission for a BAMS degree on the Court that the candidate had not passed the qualifying examination from only one Board. In the present case, the petitioner passed Class XII from Punjab Board and Biology subject separately from Himachal Pradesh Board.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The effusive clarion call by the petitioner on the ground of equity, for relaxation of the eligibility criteria, is thus beyond the purview of legal framework."

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel said, while it is within the writ Court's remit to remedy injustice where the law is silent or deficient, such remedial measures must not metamorphise into judicial legislation which impinges upon the extant rules.

It added that the Court, in its equitable jurisdiction serves as the guardian of justice, yet it must remain ever vigilant against the perils of judicial overreach, wherein discretionary powers are wielded in a manner that proscribes legal mandates.

The Court considered the question, "whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification(s), in terms of the 09.11.2022 notification, to be admitted to the course in question, and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to the course in question."

The petitioner Gurpreet Singh passed the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics & English from the Punjab School Education Board, whereas he passed Biology as an additional paper, from the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education.

The bench noted that, "Clause 18 and the qualification(s) possessed by the petitioner, leads to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is not qualified to apply for the course in question in terms of Clause 18 since he did not pass the qualifying examination (10+2) from a single Board/University."

It highlighted that Singh cannot be stated to be qualified for securing admission to the course in question as he does not possess the mandatory educational qualifications for the same.

Perusing the notification, the bench said, "They are susceptible to only one meaning, thus, a Court of law is bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences flowing therefrom."

"The Law countenance no preferential treatment or relaxation in favour of an individual, particularly when such relaxation has neither statutory sanction nor any reasonable nexus with the avowed objective behind the eligibility criteria," it added.

The Court further said that, it is an immutable and sacrosanct obligation of a writ Court to dispense justice in accordance with the exalted principles of good conscience, justice and equity.

"However, the invocation of equitable jurisdiction does not confer upon the Court an unfettered prerogative to render orders in complete defiance or in oblivion of the established tenets of the law of the land," it added.

Justice Goel pointed that, "The maxim Aequitas Sequitur Legem –– equity follows the law –– encapsulates the fundamental doctrine, namely, that an equitable relief must be harmonized with statutory provisions, not granted in derogation thereof."

While dismissing the plea, the bench said, "The writ Court, whilst exercising its plenary powers in equity, is vested with the authority to bridge the lacunae that may exist within the rigid framework of statutory provisions."

However, adding a word of caution, the Court opined, "such a course of action must be undertaken with due reverence to the overarching legal order, lest it results in judicial encroachment that supplant it; or it tampers the rigours of legal formalism without eviscerating the statutory fabric upon which the administration of justice firmly rests."

Mr. Kanwarpal Singh Mahey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shreya Bublani, Advocate, Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate for Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Paramjit Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: Gurpreet Singh v. Guru Ravidas Ayurved University, VPO Kharkan, Una Road, District Hoshiarpur and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 134

Click here to read/download the order