KARAMJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Auction Recorder, has approached this court challenging the order dated 1.4.2010, whereby the order dated 12.1.2008 passed by Chairman, Punjab Mandi Board (for short, 'the Board') transferring the petitioner from Market Committee, Noormehal to Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika, was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case was working as Auction Recorder in Market Committee, Noormehal. He made a request for his transfer to Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika. His request was considered. Resolution was passed by both the Market Committees and in terms thereof, the order was passed by the Chairman of the Board transferring the petitioner from Noormehal to Bhagta Bhaika. It was specifically mentioned in the order of transfer that the petitioner will loose his seniority. His seniority shall be considered in the transferee Market Committee from the date of his joining and he will not be transferred back again. In terms of the aforesaid order of transfer, the petitioner joined service at the new place. Some of the employees of Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika challenged the order of transfer of the petitioner by filing CWP No. 19529 of 2008, The same was disposed of as the petitioners therein had effective alternative remedy of revision before the State Government under Section 42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). Thereafter, a revision was filed in which the order of the petitioner from Noormehal to Bhagta Bhaika was quashed by the State Government.

(2.) Learned counsel further submitted that at the time of transfer and absorption of the petitioner in Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika, in the resolution passed by it, it was specifically mentioned that one post meant for direct recruitment was lying vacant. The petitioner was adjusted against that post. The private respondents could not be aggrieved of against that as the same was not affecting their rights. Still in the impugned order, the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture (Mandi Branch) had noticed that both the posts meant for direct recruitment were already filled up in Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika, hence, the petitioner could not be adjusted. Further, it was submitted that even if the facts, as are noticed by the Secretary in the impugned order, are true, in view of the developments which have taken place during the pendency of the present petition, still the petitioner can be adjusted in Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika as one of the incumbent, who was appointed against the post meant for direct recruitment, has been promoted as Mandi Supervisor in the year 2010. The petitioner can now be adjusted from the date the post fell vacant. He is even ready to forego his seniority upto that period.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsels for the Board as well as Market Committee, Bhagta Bhaika submitted that at the time of passing of resolution, initially wrong facts were projected regarding the vacancy position, however, considering the fact that one post in direct recruitment quota has become available with the promotion of Jagroop Singh as Mandi Supervisor, the case of the petitioner can be re-considered. Referring to Section 3(9) of the Act, it was submitted that power of superintendence and control of the Committees lies with the Board. He further referred to Section 20(2) of the Act, which provides that a Committee may, with the prior approval of the Board, employ such persons and servants which may be necessary for the management of the market.