PETITIONER: SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: PUNJAB STATE AGRL.MARKETING BOARD DATE OF JUDGMENT07/09/1994 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (6) 320 1994 SCALE (4)285 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
CWP No. 388 of 1987 which was dismissed on 23-11-1987. On
14-9-1985 the Market Committee of Shri Hargobindpur Sahib in
Gurdaspur District had published in the daily newspaper Ajit
calling applications to fill the posts of Auction Recorder,
Electrician, Helper, Chowkidar and Clerk etc. It would
appear that on 28-9-1985 a sub-committee was constituted for
selection of the candidates and on the same day selection
was done. The General Body of the Market Committee approved
the selection and letters of appointment were issued
From the Judgment and Order dated 23-11-1987 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 388 of 1987
321
and the selected candidates had joined on the same day on
regular basis. On 17-1-1987 the Board reviewed the
appointments and terminated their appointments. The
appellant challenged the termination orders. The High
Court, as stated earlier, dismissed the writ petition on
diverse grounds. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
2. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants strenuously contended that the Committee was
duly constituted to select the candidates; advertisement in
the local newspaper was made inviting the applications; the
appellants along with others had applied for and were duly
selected to the existing regular posts as on that date and
were duly appointed. Though there was ban on ad hoc or
temporary appointments, there was no ban on the appointment
to the regular posts which came to be issued on 18-10-1985
and that therefore, the appointment of the appellants cannot
be said to be irregular or illegal. He also contended that
the cancellation was made by the Board without notice to the
appellants and that therefore, it is violative of not only
the regulations, but also the principles of natural justice.
In the view we are taking, it is not necessary to consider
the questions raised by the appellants or the grounds on
which the High Court affirmed the order of cancellation of
appointments made by the Board.
3. Subsequent to the cancellation of the appointment of
the appellants, on a regular advertisement candidates were
selected, appointments were made and posts have been filled
up. Those candidates have been functioning from 27-5-1987
onwards. They are not before this Court nor are they sought
to be impleaded in the High Court. Therefore, any order
that may be passed by this Court would have adverse effect
of unsettling their appointment without they being impleaded
and without any opportunity of hearing given to them. Under
those circumstances, we decline to interfere with the order
of the High Court and the order of the Market Committee
cancelling the appointments of the appellants. However, if
any future vacancies were to arise or any existing for which
any regular recruitment is to be made, the appellants may
also apply for and their cases may also be considered along
with others according to rules. In case by that date, they
become barred by age, the necessary relaxation in respect of
age may be given and they may also be considered along with
other qualified candidates for selection to regular
appointments. Any payments made for the period during which
the appellants were in service from the date of the
appointment till the date of termination and they worked in
that period, there may not be any order for I recovery of
the same.
4. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
323