Punjabi Mistress Aspirants Have 1 Month To Seek Individual Merit Review; P&H HC Leaves Appointment Claims To Education Director

The petitioners sought appointment as Punjabi Mistresses, contending that candidates with lower merit had been appointed

The original selection lists were published on 16 December 2022; after the answer keys were reconsidered, revised results and selection lists were issued in May 2023, and appointments based on the original lists were cancelled

In LPA-727-2023, the Division Bench set aside the order upholding those cancellations; the State’s SLP was dismissed on 5 August 2025

The Department subsequently restored the original selection lists and reviewed the position of candidates appointed under the revised lists. It reported that 14 candidates fell within the original merit zones, while 237 remained outside them and had their services terminated

The petitioners’ individual eligibility remained disputed

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The Court proceeded on the basis that the Division Bench judgment in LPA-727-2023—which set aside the cancellation of appointments made under the original selection lists—had attained finality after dismissal of the State’s SLP

It also relied on the principles of natural justice in noting that affected candidates had been given notice and an opportunity of personal hearing during the Department’s review

The Court stated no further statutory rule or precedent governing the petitioners’ substantive entitlement

The Court noted that the Department had taken action concerning candidates appointed under the revised results, but the petitioners’ own entitlement depended on their positions in the original merit lists and required individual assessment

Rather than determine that assessment in the writ petitions, the Court accepted the State counsel’s statement that the petitioners could submit representations and that the Director would decide them after a hearing

Any claim to benefits from the date of a junior’s appointment was likewise left for consideration if a petitioner was found entitled to appointment

The Director was directed to endeavour to decide each representation within six weeks thereafter, after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing

If a petitioner was found entitled to appointment, the claim for benefits from the date a junior was appointed was also to be considered in accordance with law