GURPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder of the Market Committee, Patran was invalid and illegal. The said order came to be passed on the basis of a writ petition filed by respondent No. 4. It is to be noted that the said petition was styled as a Public Interest Litigation (in short PIL).

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspect would be necessary.

(3.) Appellant was appointed as Auction Recorder on 19-11-1986. Appointment of the appellant was challenged by one Ashok Kumar, clerk of the Market Committee by filing a complaint before the competent authority alleging that the appellant having been convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act in 1974 for alleged commission of offence on 21-5-1973 and was therefore ineligible for being considered for appointment. The complaint was looked into by the Market Committee and by order dated 22nd May, 1989 it was held that the appointment was not contrary to law. The Standing Counsel of the Committee categorically opined that since no moral turpitude of any kind was involved, there was no ineligibility attached to the appellant and his appointment was in accordance with law. For the aforesaid purpose reliance was placed on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Narain Singh vs. N. S. Chima (1997 SLWR 448). On 5-9-1989 appellants services were regularized under the Punjab Market Committees (Class III) Rules, 1989 which came to be operative after appellant was appointed. Prior to that no specific Rules were there. A Civil Writ Petition No. 3451 of 1989 was filed by one Chandra Bhan before Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the direct appointment of the appellant. During pendency of the said writ petition Sukhjinder Singh filed a complaint before the Administrator, Market Committee questioning appellants appointment. Notice was issued by the Administrator to the appellant, who filed his reply. A revision in terms of Section 42 of the Punjab and Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (in short the Markets Act) was filed before the Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture who passed orders to the effect that Administrator should look into the matter and take a decision as to whether action against the appellant was called for. While Writ Petition No. 3451 of 1989 was pending, Civil Writ Petition No. 6180 of 2000 was filed by the respondent No. 4 challenging appointment of the appellant and as noted above the petition was stated to be one in public interest. Counter-affidavit was filed by the Punjab Mandi Board and the Market Committee taking the stand that since conviction of the appellant did not involve any moral turpitude the appointment was in accordance with law. Appellant also filed counter-affidavit before the Market Committee questioning locus standi of the writ petitioner to challenge his appointment. It was pointed out that no public interest involved and because of political and personal rivalry the petition had been filed. The High Court by the impugned order held that since the appellant had been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction under Seciton 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, his appointment was not according to rules. Therefore his appointment was set aside and the Punjab Mandi Board and the Market Committee were directed to start fresh process of selection for filling up of the post.