JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of all the above mentioned 18 writ petitions, as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose a common question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-24697-2025.

2. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned orders dated 01.08.2025 (Annexures P-19 to P-21) passed by the respondent-Punjab Mandi Board. By way of these orders, the respondent-Board cancelled resolutions dated 08.11.2011, 13.03.2012, 13.02.2012, 18.07.2011, and 18.08.2011, through which the petitioners’ respective appointments were originally approved. Furthermore, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 05.07.2002 (Annexure P-22), vide which the Government of Punjab delegated the powers of the respondent-Board, as enumerated under Section 33(4)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, to the Secretary of the respondent-Board. Additionally, a writ of mandamus is sought for issuance of direction to the respondents to promote the petitioners in their respective cadres and release all pending dues along with interest @8% per annum.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged, are that the services of the petitioners are governed by the Punjab Market Committees (Class-III) Service Rules, 1989 (Annexure P-1), the Punjab Market Committees (Class-IV) Service Rules, 1989 (Annexure P-2) and the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) (Annexure P-11). In compliance with these Service Rules, the respondent-Market Committee issued an advertisement on 12.06.2011 (Annexure P-3) for the posts of Auction Recorder, Clerk, Chowkidar, Peon and Caretaker. The advertisement stipulated that selection would be made purely on the basis of educational qualification and merit. The petitioners applied in response to that. Thereafter, the duly constituted Recruiting Authority prepared a merit list based on academic merit. 4. Accordingly, the petitioners were issued appointment letters on 23.06.2011 (Annexure P-7) under Rule 6 of the respective Service Rules, consequent to which they joined service on 26.06.2011. The appointments were subsequently approved by the Chairman and Secretary of the respondent- Market Committee vide Resolutions dated 18.07.2011, 13.03.2012, and 18.08.2011 (Annexures P-8 to P-10 respectively).

5. However, vide orders dated 20.11.2012 (Annexures P-12 & P-13), the Secretary of the respondent-Board annulled the selection of the petitioners by invoking powers under Section 33(4)(i) of the 1961 Act, which had been purportedly delegated to him vide letter dated 05.07.2002 (Annexure P-22) by the State Government. The grounds for annulment included: (i) advertisement published in only one newspaper; (ii) appointment of matriculate candidates as Chowkidars instead of middle pass; (iii) alleged violation of the Chief Minister’s order dated 30.03.2011 regarding transparent recruitment through C-DAC, Mohali. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the orders dated 20.11.2012 (Annexures P-12 & P-13) before the State Government under Section 42 of the 1961 Act. While status quo was ordered on 17.12.2012 (Annexure P-14), the petition was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2014 (Annexure P-15).

6. The petitioners then filed CWP-19249-2014 seeking quashing of the orders dated 20.11.2012 (Annexures P-12 & P-13) as well as order dated 16.05.2014 (Annexure P-15). This Court, vide judgment dated 11.09.2019 (Annexure P-16), set aside the orders dated 20.11.2012 and 16.05.2014 on two primary grounds: a) the State Government cannot delegate the powers of the Board to its Secretary under Section 3(17) of the 1961 Act. As such, in absence of any specific provision in the 1961 Act granting such powers of delegation, the memo dated 05.07