Dismissed¶¶35

Nandini Sharma v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Jul 2026LPA/733/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana HC, LPA-733-2023 (O&M), decided July 10, 2026, Sethi J. (oral) with Grewal J. — ETT Teacher recruitment (advertisement 05.09.2007); ex-serviceman reserved category ineligibility; claim for General category consideration on merit; Single Judge order dated 01.03.2023 in CWP No.23489 of 2014 upheld in effect; marks comparison 62.709 vs 59.58; belated challenge to assessment after seven years impermissible; no ouster of already-selected, seven-year-serving General category candidate; appeal dismissed; CM-1905-LPA-2023 condonation of 20 days re-filing delay allowed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the appeal was dismissed. (Earlier, CM-1905-LPA-2023 seeking condonation of 20 days' delay in re-filing was allowed.) ¶¶35

Nandini Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the appeal was dismissed. (Earlier, CM-1905-LPA-2023 seeking condonation of 20 days' delay in re-filing was allowed.)

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, found ineligible for consideration in the reserved category of ex-serviceman, ought to have been considered by the respondents in the General category and appointed as ETT Teacher on the basis of her merit. +2 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

Even if the argument that the respondents ought to have changed the appellant's category on their own is accepted, no candidate with lesser marks was appointed in the General category, since the last selected General category candidate secured 62.709 marks whereas the appellant was allocated 59.58 marks (as per the finding in paragraph 7 of the Single Judge's order dated 01.03.2023).

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

After a period of seven years, the appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the marks awarded to her.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

The appellant cannot contend that her category be changed from ex-serviceman to General so as to oust a General category candidate who has already been selected and has been working on the post for more than seven years, thereby causing prejudice to such candidate.ratio¶¶34
No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.ratio¶¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 01.03.2023 in CWP No.23489 of 2014 dismissing the appellant's claim for appointment as ETT Teacher pursuant to advertisement dated 05.09.2007. The appellant, found ineligible in the reserved ex-serviceman category, contended she should have been considered in the General category on her own merit and that the Single Judge ignored this plea. The Division Bench (Harsimran Singh Sethi J., oral) held that even assuming the respondents were bound to shift her category suo motu, the last selected General category candidate had secured 62.709 marks against the appellant's 59.58, so no lesser-merit candidate was appointed; further, after seven years the appellant could not challenge the marks awarded to her nor seek a category change that would oust a General category candidate already selected and working for over seven years. No ground for interference; appeal dismissed; delay of 20 days in re-filing condoned. Marked speaking/reasoned: Yes; reportable: No.

¶1

¶2

LPA-733-2023 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(206) LPA-733-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 10, 2026

Nandini Sharma

.. Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Senior Advocate with

¶12

Mr. Shivam Ahuja, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

¶14

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

¶15

CM-1905-LPA-2023

¶16

Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶17

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 20 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

LPA-733-2023 (O&M)

¶19

In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.23489 of 2014 whereby, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on post of ETT Teacher despite being higher in merit (appellant herein) has been dismissed.

¶20

HARSHA RANI 2026.07.14 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

LPA-733-2023 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

It may be noticed that the appellant had competed for the post of ETT Teacher as advertised by the respondents on 05.09.2007 in the reserved category of ex-serviceman. The respondents found the appellant ineligible for being considered under the category of ex-serviceman and the claim of the appellant was that she should have been considered in General category to be considered in such category on the basis of her merit, which has not been considered by the respondents.

¶24

Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed a writ petition in CWP No.23489 of 2014 which writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 01.03.2023 against which, the present appeal has been filed.

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant is not agitating her claim to be considered in the reserved category of ex-serviceman so in case, her candidature in the category of exserviceman cannot be considered, she should have been considered eligible in the General category by the respondents to be appointed on the basis of her merit obtained qua such posts.

¶26

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration such plea as raised by the appellant, which caused prejudice to the appellant.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶28

The argument which has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that though, the appellant has claimed to be considered and be selected in the reserved category of ex-serviceman but HARSHA RANI 2026.07.14 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

LPA-733-2023 (O&M)

¶30

¶31

as per the finding by the respondents that she was not eligible for such post in the said category, it was incumbent upon the respondents to change her category on their own so as to consider the appellant in the General category

¶32

and appoint appellant on such post as advertised on the basis of her merit.

¶33

Even if the said argument of the appellant is accepted then also, keeping in view the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 of the order dated 01.03.2023, the last selected candidate in the General category had secured 62.709 marks whereas the marks allocated to the appellant were 59.58, it cannot be said that even in the General category, any candidate having lesser marks, has been appointed by the respondents.

¶34

At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the merit of the appellant was not rightly assessed. 10. Further, after a period of seven years, the appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the marks awarded to her and to contend that not only her category should be changed from ex-serviceman to General category so as to oust a General category candidate who has already been selected and working on such post for the last more than seven years as to cause prejudice to such candidate.

¶35

Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands

¶36

disposed of.

¶37

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

July 10, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) harsha JUDGE

¶40

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶41

HARSHA RANI 2026.07.14 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document