LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 269 1. LPA-438-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision 09.07.2026 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ….Appellants V/S SUMAN ….Respondents 2. LPA-182-2019 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ….Appellants V/S REKHA ….Respondents 3. CWP-2815-2016 (O&M) NIRMALJEET KAUR ….Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ….Respondents 4. CWP-14340-2016 (O&M) SONIA SHARMA AND OTHERS ….Petitioners V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ….Respondents 5. LPA-441-2019 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ….Appellants V/S MAMTA SHARMA ….Respondent 6. LPA-446-2019 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ….Appellants V/S GEETA ….Respondent 1 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters 7. LPA-450-2019 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Appellants V/S VANITA Respondent 8. LPA-451-2019 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Appellants V/S SAVITA RANI Respondent 9. LPA-452-2019 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Appellants V/S SUNITA RANI Respondent 10. LPA-458-2019 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Appellants V/S REETA RANI Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.K. Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prabhat K. Jalbera, Advocate for the respondents in LPA-438, 182, 446, 450, 451, 452 and 458 of 2019 & respondents No.3 to 7 in CWP-14340-2016. Mr. Shreesh Kakkar, Advocate for Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-2815-2016. 2 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-14340-2016. Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate, for respondents No. 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 to 20, 23 to 26 and 28 and 30 in CWP-14340-2016. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present bunch of appeals and writ petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from LPA-438-2019. 2. The present appeal is challenging the order dated 12.01.2018 passed in CWP-10951 of 2015 decided in the light of CWP-2302 of 2015 titled as Rekha and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, on the ground that whether on the basis of the revised merit list, the respondents who had lost their initial merit on which they were selected and appointed, can be removed from the service especially when as on today, they had already completed more than one and half decade of service and have become ineligible to compete for any selection process undertaken on the basis of such revised merit. The facts need to be appreciated for the present order. 3. That appellants were initially appointed on contract basis after the issuance of the advertisement on 23.09.2009 on the post of Masters/ Lecturer/Vocational Master/Mistress for 7654 posts of teachers which include 713 posts of Hindi Masters/Mistress, all the appellants were appointed on contractual basis as Masters in unreserved category. The appellants continued working when the selection was challenged by certain 3 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters candidates who claim that they are more meritorious than the selected and appointed candidates. 4. The appointments though made in the year 2011 became the subject matter of consideration in the writ petition filed in the year 2015. The said writ petitions were filed for the reason that the appointment which were made in the year 2011 were ultimately regularized in 2015. In order to get a regular appointment, the writ petitions were filed so as to allege and contend that the selection of the respondents herein were bad in law. 5. After disposal of such writ petitions, enquiry, show cause notices dated 16.01.2015 were issued to the respondents herein to show cause as to why they not be removed from service on account of preparation of fresh merit list. 6. The said show cause notices which were issued after the services of the respondents had already been regularized were made the subject matter in the writ petitions filed, in the year 2015. 7. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 12.01.2018 found that issuance of a show cause notice dated 16.01.2015 to the respondents is bad as, they had already been appointed and continued in service and such show cause notices issued were set aside by the learned Single Judge. The claim of the candidates having higher merit in the revised merit list were made eligibility be considered against available vacant posts. It was also clarified that the inter-se seniority shall be determined in accordance with revised merit list. 4 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters 8. In the present bunch of LPAs filed, direction was given to maintain status quo qua the respondents and they were held entitled to minimum pay scale. 9. The question which arise for the consideration in the present bunch of appeals is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents, whose merit has been lowered due to revised merit list should be allowed to continue on such post and whether, the candidates who have gained merit in the revised merit list should be directed to be appointed by dispensing with the service of the respondents. 10. It is very unfortunate to know that the selection list has been prepared in the manner which needed revision. The recruiting agency should have been vigilant enough to take into consideration the rules and facts while undertaking the selection process so that, the same is done as per the settled principle of law without there being any need of revising the same at a later stage. 11. In the present case, initially the posts were advertised on contractual basis as advertised in the year 2009 and the selection was made after a period of 2 years in the year 2011. As per the merit list prepared and provisional counselling done, appointments were made on contractual basis starting from the year 2011 which appointment continued till same was regularized in the year 2014, facts shows that a contractual appointment, which is to be resorted to in the case of emergency, took 5 years to reach to its conclusion and leading to the litigation that the merit list has not been 5 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters prepared in a manner as was required to be prepared. The state after conducting an enquiry and realizing it’s mistake started the process of revising the merit list and gave show cause notice dated 16.01.2015 to the respondents as to why their services should not be terminated. It may be noticed that by the time show cause notices were issued to the respondents, their contractual appointment had already been converted into the regular appointment. 12. The issue at hand was finally settled by the judgment /order rendered by learned Single Judge whereby it was found that even if the merit list is to be revised, the candidates who had already performed the duties for sufficiently long period, should not be disturbed. 13. It was further clarified the Court that the candidate who had gained higher merit is liable to be considered against available vacant posts and inter-se seniority shall be determined in accordance with revised merit list. 14. Even after the judgment of the learned Single Judge, 8 years have passed and as of now respondents are still working with the State and their tenure as of now is 11 years to 14 years, which is a sufficient long time to conclude that removing respondents out of service at this stage will be too harsh especially when there is no allegation of any mala fide or manipulation in the selection qua the initial merit determined of the respondents, on the basis of which they were selected and appointed. 15. As per the settled principle of law that a candidate whose merit has gone down but by the said date such appointee has already served for a 6 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters sufficient long time, the efforts should be made to protect such appointment. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.5318-5319 of 2013 decided on 09.07.2013 titled ‘Vikas Pratap Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other connected cases’. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: “25. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re- evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service. 26. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent- State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 27. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. 7 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters 28. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment.” 16. Further by placing reliance upon the said judgment learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-12835-2012 decided on 26.04.2014, titled Sahil Aggarwal Vs. State of Punjab and others, followed the same dictum that the appointment of a candidate whose merit had been lower in the revised merit list. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: “28. “XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX The enunciation of law, as emerges from the aforesaid cases, is that in case some candidates are appointed on the basis of result of competitive examination and later on it was found that there was some error either in the questions or any answer key, their appointments is not to be set aside if they had worked on the selected post for three years or more, unless there are allegations of fraud, mischief or misrepresentation against the selected candidates. In the present case, the selection and appointments were made as a consequence of the result of the written test declared on 2.5.2010. The test was out-sourced to an independent agency, i.e., Panjab University. Undisputedly the last appointment from the waiting list was made in March, 2011, meaning thereby for the last three years they are working. The appointments on the basis of revised result after correction of the answer keys were made subsequently, hence, the appointment of the candidates, who got merit position in terms of the result declared at the first place cannot be set aside even if they have not got merit position in terms of the revised result declared after correction of the answer keys. 8 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX.” Hence, keeping in view the said settled principle of law, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be treated as perverse either on fact or on law so as to oust the respondents from their services at this point of time as they have already rendered 11 to 14 years of service. 17. Further, as the appointment of the respondents has been allowed to continue, they should be treated in continuous appointment from their initial date of appointment and any financial benefit which has been withheld to be given to respondents so far as during the pendency of the present litigation, the respondents will be free to make a representation before such forum to claim such benefit and in case any such representation is made, the respondents will decide the said claim within a period of 8 weeks by passing appropriate order. 18. Now the question which arises is whether the candidates who are 8 in number and have gained merit in the revised merit list before this Court needs to be appointed or not. 19. The candidates who are higher in merit and are before this Court for the last more than one decade cannot be allowed to suffer only because of the incorrect merit list prepared initially and non-grant of benefit despite direction by the learned Single Judge to revise the merit list only on the basis of the order passed or status quo been given in the present bunch of petitions. As of now, the candidates who are lower in merit have not only been appointed initially on contract basis but regularise thereafter, hence, the candidates who are in higher in merit as per the revise merit, who agitated the same before this Court and that to successfully, needs to be adjusted. 9 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters 20. Learned State counsel has not been able to dispute that the petitioners in CWP-2815-2016 and CWP-14340-2016 are higher in merit than the respondents in LPAs, whose appointment is not to be disturbed by learned Single Judge so as to allow them to continue in service which has been upheld by the Court in the present one. 21. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances that only 8 candidates are before this Court, let the State consider their claim vis. a vis. the respondents who have been allowed to continue in service keeping in view their position of merit in the revised merit list and in case any of the petitioner in CWP-2815-2016 and CWP-14340-2016 is higher in merit, they shall also be granted the benefit of appointment prospectively. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-2815-2016 and CWP-14340-2016 submits that the prospective appointment will also be acceptable to the petitioners so that at least they can get regular appointment. In case, it is found that the petitioners are higher in merits, they should be appointed within a period of six weeks from today and such consideration should be completed within a period of four weeks from today. In case, any of the petitioner is not able to be granted selection and appointment, due reason, based upon the revised merit list should be given vis. a vis. the appointment of the respondents whose services have been saved despite their merit being lower in the revised merit list. It is made clear that the present relief is being granted to the petitioners who are vigilant, hence, any body 10 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-438-2019 (O&M) and connected matters else who now approaches the Court after a period of one and half decade of the selection, such claim will not be entertained. 23. Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.02.2018 either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed and connected writ petitions are disposed of with the observation made hearinabove. 24. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 25. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE July 09, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) anil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No 11 ANIL KUMAR 2026.07.21 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document