Punjab: When the state cannot change the rules even after decades.

Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling that failing a Punjabi language test at the middle standard level cannot be grounds for denying regularization after nearly three decades of service is far more than just relief for one individual. It is a strong judicial message that the state cannot first exploit workers and then later invent “eligibility criteria.”
This judgment confronts a practice that has quietly become institutionalized in government departments: employing workers for years, even decades, without objection, and then denying them job security at the regularization stage by citing technical issues like qualifications. Calling this “arbitrary and exploitative,” a violation of Articles 14 and 16, the High Court has placed constitutional limits on administrative convenience.
What makes this judgment significant is the clarity with which the court dismissed the state’s arguments. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar doesn’t merely say that the employee deserves sympathy. He frames the issue as a constitutional question: Can the state, after availing itself of continuous service for 27 years, suddenly rely on a qualification it never insisted upon during the entire period of service? The answer is clearly no.
This judgment exposes a major contradiction in government employment practices. If a middle standard Punjabi qualification was truly necessary to perform the duties of a gardener, how did the employee manage to perform his job satisfactorily for nearly three decades? The court’s observation goes to the heart of administrative hypocrisy: qualifications are ignored when work needs to be done, but they are resurrected when benefits are to be conferred.
This is where the judgment acquires broader public significance. In Punjab and Haryana, thousands of daily wage earners, ad-hoc employees, and contractual workers are serving the state under regularization policies that promise stability after a certain period. Yet, many are dismissed on grounds that were never raised at the time of appointment or during their service. This judgment sends a clear signal that such subsequent impediments will not pass constitutional scrutiny.
Equally significant is the court’s rejection of the state’s reliance on the principle of negative equality. Governments often argue that since some illegal benefits were granted earlier, others cannot claim equality. Justice Barar draws a crucial distinction: this is not a case of demanding illegality, but of enforcing constitutional guarantees against exploitation. When fundamental rights are extinguished by applying a policy selectively or mechanically, the shield of “strict adherence” falls away. This judgment also reinforces a vital principle in service law: welfare policies like regularization must be interpreted purposively, not punitively. The 2023 Punjab Regularization Policy was designed to bring long-serving employees into the mainstream. Denying its benefits on a technicality that has been irrelevant for decades defeats the very purpose of the policy. The court’s approach restores the policy’s true character as a welfare measure, not a filter for exclusion.
From a governance perspective, this judgment raises some difficult questions for the executive. How many departments hire employees without verifying qualifications that they later deem essential? How many rejections are issued mechanically without examining whether the condition was ever actually enforced? This judgment implicitly demands administrative introspection and uniformity, failing which the courts will intervene.
The directive that the employee will be deemed regularized if the order is not complied with within six weeks further underscores judicial impatience with bureaucratic delays. It reflects a growing trend where courts are unwilling to leave implementation entirely to the mercy of the very officials whose actions were found to be arbitrary.
Beyond service law, this judgment fits into a broader constitutional narrative. This confirms that the dignity of labor and fairness in public employment are not abstract ideals but enforceable rights. The state, as a model employer, is held to a higher standard precisely because of the power imbalance it holds over low-wage employees, who have very little bargaining power.
For employees in similar situations, this judgment delivers far more than just hope—it provides a legal framework. For the administration, it serves as a warning that welfare policies cannot be confined to mere paperwork, detached from ground realities. And for the constitutional courts, it reiterates their role as a check against subtle forms of exploitation disguised as technical compliance.