The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday issued notice to the High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC) in response to a petition filed by three general counsellors challenging the revised eligibility criteria for their posts. The petitioners, who have been engaged on a contract basis since 2024, contend that the new requirement—mandating both a Master’s degree in Psychology and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B)—unfairly disadvantages them as they hold only the former qualification.
The court, presided over by Justice Sudeepti Sharma, directed the HCLSC to file a reply before the next date of hearing, scheduled for September 1, with a copy served in advance to the counsel representing the petitioners. The order emphasized that the reply must address the substantive objections raised in the petition.
The petition argues that the alteration in qualification criteria, effected via a notification dated August 4, lacks rational nexus with the duties of the post. It highlights that general counsellors are engaged to provide counselling services in matrimonial disputes and matters concerning women, children, and senior citizens—functions that, according to the petitioners, are rooted in psychological expertise rather than legal training.
Furthermore, the petitioners assert that the combined requirement is practically exclusionary, noting that individuals who complete an undergraduate LL.B are generally ineligible to pursue a Master’s in Psychology due to academic stream constraints. They contend that this effectively bars most psychology graduates from applying, thereby defeating the purpose of the recruitment.
The petition also challenges the necessity of an LL.B for a role that does not involve litigation, legal advice, or court representation. It maintains that the core function of the counsellor is therapeutic and advisory in a psychosocial context, not legal, and thus the law degree requirement is irrelevant and disproportionate.
Representing the petitioners, Advocates Gagandeep Kumar Tiwari and Devi Lal submitted that the change disrupts the existing contractual engagements and creates unreasonable barriers for incumbent counsellors seeking renewal. They urged the court to reconsider the qualification criteria in light of the actual duties performed.
Advocate Arjun Shukla appeared for the respondent, the HCLSC, though no counter-arguments were detailed in the available excerpt. The court has not yet expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, limiting its intervention to issuing notice and seeking a formal response.
The matter remains pending, with the HCLSC required to justify the amended criteria through its reply. The outcome will determine whether the dual qualification stands or whether the post will revert to requiring only a Master’s in Psychology, as was the case prior to August 4.