Major relief to Punjab market committee employees as High Court quashes termination orders
Long-serving staff get relief as Justice Harpreet Singh Brar rules appointments irregular but not illegal; holds as invalid the delegation of powers to Mandi Board secretary
The Mandi Board, however, annulled these citing inadequate advertisement, appointment of higher-qualified candidates for lower posts, and alleged violation of a 2011 Chief Minister’s meeting directive for transparent recruitment through C-DAC. (Source: Express Archives) Granting major relief to dozens of Class III and IV employees of various market committees in Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the termination orders issued against them by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Mandi Board).
A single-judge bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, in a detailed verdict pronounced on February 9, disposed of a bunch of 18 connected writ petitions, holding that the appointments made in 2011, though suffering from procedural irregularities, were not illegal and could not be cancelled after 14 years of continuous service.
The lead petition filed by Sandeep Singh and others, challenged orders dated August 1, 2025, through which the secretary of the Mandi Board cancelled resolutions approving their appointments made in 2011 for posts such as auction recorder, clerk, peon, chowkidar and caretaker. Similar cancellations had been attempted earlier in 2012, but were set aside by the high court in 2019 with directions for a fresh hearing.
The employees had been appointed by the respective market committees following advertisements in 2011, merit lists based on academic qualifications, and approval resolutions. The Mandi Board, however, annulled these citing inadequate advertisement, appointment of higher-qualified candidates for lower posts, and alleged violation of a 2011 Chief Minister’s meeting directive for transparent recruitment through C-DAC.
Justice Brar quashed the 2025 cancellation orders and directed release of salary arrears and consequential benefits for periods actually worked, within six weeks.
Key reasoning of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar:
- The delegation of the Mandi Board’s powers under Section 33(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, to its secretary via a 2002 government approval was invalid, as the original proposal lacked authorisation through a proper board resolution and appeared to be initiated unilaterally by the Secretary himself.
- Reliance on the minutes of the March 30, 2011 meeting (chaired by the then CM ) was “wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law,” as these minutes carried no statutory force and could not override or amend the governing 1989 Service Rules.
- The market committee is the competent appointing authority under the statutory rules for Class III and IV posts; minor procedural lapses, such as limited newspaper publication or absence of a written test (not mandated by rules), render appointments irregular at best, not illegal.
- Appointments were made against sanctioned posts to qualified candidates with substantial compliance to rules; no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation or total disregard of statutory mandates was found.
- After over 14 years of satisfactory service under interim court protection, terminating the employees would be “unjust, arbitrary and inequitable,” violating principles of fairness and proportionality, especially as they are now over-aged for alternative employment.
- Public employment carries assurance of stability and security; unsettling experienced employees at this stage would deprive the state of their services, contrary to public interest.
The court clarified that its findings on invalid delegation is confined to these petitions and cannot reopen other unassailed orders passed under the same delegation. It also permitted the secretary, Agriculture Department, to examine individual cases only for lack of minimum qualifications or proven fraud, after due hearing.
Petitioners challenging the original appointments (in older connected cases) were denied direct relief but allowed to apply in future fresh recruitments. One specific petitioner seeking temporary service salary was directed to have his representation decided within six weeks.
Share
