Advocates:
MADHU MOOLCHANDANI

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2802-2803 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Gurpal Singh

RESPONDENT:

State of Punjab & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/2005

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

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’).

A brief reference to the factual aspect would be

necessary.

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 v. N.S. Chima

(1997 SLWR 448). On 5.9.1989 appellant’s 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 appellant’s 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

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 Section

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.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that Writ Petiti