Jasvir Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -1-
109+118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-15874-2025
Date of Decision : 31.10.2026
JASVIR KAUR .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-22258-2026
RUBINA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-22280-2026
ANKITA SHARMA .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-26614-2026
GURLEEN SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-25922-2026
RAJIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -2-
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-23112-2026
INDERJEET KAUR AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-33680-2026
LAKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-34097-2026
KOMAL AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CWP-35817-2026
REENU RANI .....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Surya Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate,
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -3-
Mr. Siddharth Dhiman, Advocate,
Ms. Samridhi Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-15874-2025 &
CWP-22258-2026 & CWP-22280-2026.
Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate and
Ms. Shefali Bahia, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP-33680-2026.
Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-34097-2026.
Mr. Charanji Lal, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-35817-2026
Mr. Abhishek K. Premi, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-26614-2026.
Mr. Supinder Singh Sohi, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-25922-2026 &
CWP-23112-2026.
Mr. Jastej Singh, Addl. A.G, Punjab.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
1. All the aforesaid petitions are amenable to be decided
together, as a common issue is involved therein. Accordingly, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties concerned, the same are taken
up together for final adjudication. For the sake of brevity, the facts are
being culled out from CWP-15874-2025.
2. Through the instant petitions, filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for issuance of a
direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the posts of
Punjabi Mistress, which were advertised vide advertisement dated
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -4-
08.01.2022 (Annexure P-1), on the ground that candidates having lower
merit than the petitioners have been selected for the said posts.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that, as
per the selection list dated 16.12.2022, the petitioner(s) and one Ram Lal,
the last selected candidate under the SC (RO) category, had secured 138
marks each. However, since Ram Lal was older in age, petitioner(s) was
selected and appointed in accordance with the applicable criterion,
whereas the petitioner(s) was placed at Sr. No.6 in the waiting list.
Thereafter, the answer keys published by the respondents came to be
challenged before this Court through various writ petitions, which were
decided by a common order dated 15.02.2023 passed in CWP-24855-
2022, directing reconsideration of the answer keys by an Expert
Committee. Pursuant thereto, the respondents declared a revised result on
23.03.2023, wherein the petitioner’s score stood reduced to 137 marks. In
the revised selection list issued on 15.05.2023, the last selected candidate
under the SC (RO) category, namely Dalwinder Singh, had also secured
137 marks and was selected on account of being older in age.
4. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the revised result,
certain earlier appointments were cancelled, whereupon the affected
candidates instituted CWP-11164-2023 challenging the speaking order
dated 15.03.2023 passed by the respondents. The said writ petition was
dismissed in limine by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2023, upholding
the action of the respondents. The said order was challenged in LPA-727-
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -5-
2023, which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 26.09.2024. The Division Bench set aside the order dated
22.05.2023 and held that repeated interference with the answer keys was
bad in law, and the earlier appointments could not be cancelled. The
judgment dated 26.09.2024 was assailed by the State of Punjab before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) Diary No.1764 of 2025,
however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2025.
Consequently, the judgment of the Division Bench has attained finality.
5. The grievance of the petitioners in the all writ petitions, is
that, notwithstanding the judgment of the Division Bench having attained
finality, the candidates junior to the petitioner(s), who were appointed on
the basis of the revised result, continue to remain in service and no action
have, thus far, been taken by the respondents. Learned senior counsel
contends that since the petitioners ranked higher in merit in the original
selection list, they have the first right to appointment vis-à-vis any
candidate junior to them, who were appointed on the strength of the
revised result.
6. On 06.07.2026, learned State counsel, on instructions
submitted that the matter is presently under consideration before the
Secretary, Secondary Education, Punjab, who shall take an appropriate
decision, in accordance with law and keeping in view the judgment dated
26.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench, within a period of one month
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -6-
from today, with regard to the appointments made pursuant to the revised
result.
7. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on various ocassions on
the request of learned State counsel, to make compliance to the direction
issued vide order dated 06.07.2026.
8. Today, learned State counsel has filed a short reply dated
30.10.2026, by way an affidavit of Ms.Sonali Giri, IAS, Secretary to
Government of Punjab, Department of School Education (respondent
no.1), which is taken on record, with a copy thereof supplied to all the
counsel opposite.
9. The affidavit ( supra ) speaks that now the entire exercise has
been completed and only 251 candidate were found outside the merit
zone and they were served with show cause notices on 06.05.2026,
allowing them 21 days to submit their representations. Further, that after
receipt of the aforesaid reply, the representations submitted by the
aforesaid candidates, they were also afforded an opportunity of personal
hearing to present their case in due compliance with the principles of
natural justice. The affidavit further speaks that 14 candidates were found
to have come within the merit zone as per the original selection lists
dated 16.12.2022, whereas remaining 237 candidates continued to remain
outside the merit zone. Accordingly, the termination notices issued to 14
candidates were withdrawn and the services of remaining 237 candidates
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -7-
were terminated vide office order dated 29.10.2026. The relevant part of
the aforesaid affidavit is extracted hereinafter:-
“4. That in this regard it is submitted that the
Department of School Education, Punjab, initiated recruitment
for Master/Mistress Cadre posts in various subjects through the
advertisement dated 16.12.2022/08.01.2022. After the written
examinations conducted through NIELIT and scrutiny of
documents, the final selection lists were published on 16.12.2022.
Subsequently, the answer keys were challenged before this
Hon'ble Court in various writ petitions, including CWP No.
24855 of 2022. In compliance with the common order dated
15.02.2023, the disputed answer keys were re-examined by
subject experts, leading to speaking orders dated 15.03.2023 and
revised results/ selection lists dated 15.05.2023. On this basis, the
appointments made pursuant to the original selection lists were
cancelled Public notice dated 08.05.2023.
5. That the affected candidates challenged the
aforesaid action in CWP No. 11164 of 2023, which was dismissed
on 22.05.2023. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench, vide
judgment dated 26.09.2024 in LPA No. 727 of 2023, set aside the
said judgment as well as the speaking orders dated 15.03.2023
and 08.05.2023. The Department's SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1764 of
2025 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
05.08.2025. Thereafter, vide orders dated 21.11.2025, the
Department withdrew the speaking orders dated 15.03.2023 and
directed that the recruitment process be carried forward on the
basis of the original selection lists dated 16.12.2022.
Accordingly, the selection lists dated 15.05.2023 were withdrawn
and the merit/selection lists were re-cast. On completion of this
exercise, appointment letters were issued to candidates falling
within the merit zone, while 251 candidates found outside the
merit zone were served show-cause notices dated 06.05.2026,
allowing them 21 days to submit their representations.
6. That after receipt of the replies/representations
submitted by the aforesaid candidates, they were also afforded an
opportunity of personal hearing to present their case, in due
compliance with the principles of natural justice. After
considering their replies, submissions made during personal
hearing and all other relevant facts, it was found that 14
candidates had come within the merit zones as per the original
selection lists dated 16.12.2022, whereas the remaining 237
candidates continued to remain outside the merit zone.
Accordingly, the termination notices issued to 14 candidates were
withdrawn and orders terminating the services of the remaining
237 candidates were issued vide office order dated 28.10.2026.
7. That in compliance with the directions issued by
this Hon'ble Court and after considering the matter in the light of
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -8-
the judgment dated 26.09.2024 passed in LPA No. 727 of 2023,
the Department has taken a final decision, as detailed in the
preceding paragraphs. The petitioner, as per the original
selection list dated 16.12.2022, does not fall within the merit
zone. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim appointment merely
on the ground that certain candidates appointed on the basis of
the subsequently revised result had earlier continued in service.
Since appropriate action has already been taken in respect of
candidates falling outside the merit zone, the claim of the
petitioner is not tenable and deserves to be rejected.”
10. Learned State counsel, at this stage, on instructions from Ms.
Parminder Kaur, Assistant Director (SAI) office of D.S.E. (SE), Punjab,
further makes a statement before this Court that the eligibility of each
petitioner in view of the merit list, will be considered independently, and
they are liberty to make representations to the Director, Secondary
Education, and thereupon, appropriate orders will be passed after giving a
due opportunity of hearing to them.
11. In view of the above statement, all the petitioners are
relegated to the Director, Secondary Education, for redressal of their
grievances by way of representations.
12. In case, the petitioners prefers such representation within a
period of one month from today, claiming their entitlement on the basis
of the merit list, the Director concerned, shall make all its endeavours to
decide the same within a period of 06 weeks thereafter, after giving an
adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
13. In case any of the petitioners, is found entitled for
appointment, their claim for benefits from the dates when their juniors
were appointed, shall also be considered, in accordance with law.
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-15874-2025 &
connected petitions -9-
14. All the petitions are accordingly disposed of.
15. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the
connected cases.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
October 31, 2026 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes
Whether Reportable. : No
DHARAM VIR
2026.11.04 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document