SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE AGR. MRKT. BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 388 ·01' 1987 which was dismissed on 23.11.1987. On 14.9.1985 the Market Committee of Shri Hargohindpur Sahib in Gurudaspur 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 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 appellants 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.M. Madhava Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Committee was duly constituted to select the candidates; advertisement in the local newspaper was made inviting the applications; [he 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 adhoc or temporary appointment", 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 appellant cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. He also contended that the cancellation was made by the Board without notice to the appellant" 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.) WITH these observations, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.