Sukhpal Singh and Ors. v. Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Ors.

This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 388/1987 which was dismissed on November 23, 1987. On September 14, 1985 the Market Committee of Shri Hargobindpur Sahib in Gurdaspur District had publish- ed in the daily new paper 'Ajit' calling applications to fill the post of E Auction Recorder, Electrician, Helper, Chowkidar and Clerk etc. It would appear that on September 28, 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 January 17, 1987 the Board reviewed the F appointments and terminated their appointments The appellant Chal­ lenged the termination orders. The High Court, as stated earlier, dismissed the Writ Petition on diverse grounds. Thus, this appeal by special leave. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the appel­ lants strenuously contended that the Committee was duly constituted to G select the candidates; advertisement in the local newspaper was made inviting the appellication; the appellants along with others had applied for and duly selected to the existing regular posts as on that date and were duly appointed. Though there was ban on adhoc or temporary appoint­ ments, there was no ban on the appointment to the regular posts which H 'f 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A came to be issued on October 18, 1985 and that therefore, the appointment of the appellants cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. He also con­ tended that the cancellation was made by the Board without notice to the appellants 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 B necessary to consider the questions raised by the appellants or the grounds on which the High Court affirmed the order of cancellation of appoint­ ments made by the Board. Subsequent to the cancellation of the appointment of the appellants, on a regular advertisement candidates were selected, appointments were C made and posts have been filled up. Those candidates have been function­ ing from May 27, 1987 onwards. They are not before this Court nor are they sought to be impleaded in the High Court. Therefore, any order that may be passed by this Court would have adverse effect of unsettling their appointment without they being impleaded and without any opportunity of hearing given to them. Under those circumstances, we decline·to interfere D with the order of the High Court and the order of the Market Committee cancelling the appointments of the appellants. However, in any future vacancies were to arise or any existing for which any regular. recruitment is to be made, the appellants may also apply for the their cases may also be considered along with others according to rules. In case by that date, E they become barred by age, the necessary relaxation in respect of age may be given and they may also considered along with qualified candidates for selection to regular appointments. Any payme}l.ts made for ·the period during which the appellants were in service from the date of the appoint­ ment till the date of termination and they worked in that period, there may not be any order for recovery of the same. With these observation, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed. ..