Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Mandi Board's Decision on Employee Appointments
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling, setting aside the Punjab Mandi Board's controversial decision to cancel the appointments of numerous Class III and IV employees. The court firmly held that the board's secretary lacked the necessary legal authority to annul these recruitments, marking a pivotal moment in this long-standing employment dispute.
Background of the Case and Petitioners' Plight
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar issued these decisive orders while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by employees who were appointed to various market committees back in 2011. The petitioners had challenged specific orders passed on August 1, 2025, through which the Mandi Board had unilaterally cancelled resolutions that had originally approved their appointments.
The affected employees, appointed between 2011 and 2012, held diverse positions including clerks, auction recorders, chowkidars, peons, and caretakers across market committees throughout Punjab. Their appointments had initially received formal approval through resolutions passed by the respective market committees, establishing their legitimate employment status.
The Controversial Cancellation and Legal Scrutiny
The controversy erupted when the Punjab Mandi Board, acting through its secretary, abruptly cancelled the resolutions that had approved these appointments. The board cited alleged irregularities in the original recruitment process, specifically pointing to the publication of advertisements in only one newspaper and apparent non-compliance with directions issued during a crucial meeting chaired by the chief minister in March 2011.
However, the High Court conducted a thorough legal examination and found fundamental flaws in the board's actions. The court scrutinized the delegation of powers under Section 33(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, to the secretary of the board and declared this delegation legally flawed.
Critical Legal Findings on Authority and Delegation
While the existing law does permit the board to delegate its powers with prior government approval, the court discovered no concrete evidence that the board itself had ever passed a formal resolution authorizing such delegation to its secretary. This crucial finding led the court to declare that the approval granted by the state government back in 2002 was invalid, thereby rendering the secretary completely incompetent to pass the controversial cancellation orders.
The court further rejected the board's reliance on the minutes of a meeting chaired by the chief minister on March 30, 2011, which had recommended recruitment through C-DAC for enhanced transparency. Justice Brar made a clear observation that these minutes did not constitute statutory rules or binding executive instructions and therefore could not override the established Punjab Market Committees (Class III and IV) Service Rules of 1989.
Clarification on Service Jurisprudence Principles
In a particularly significant aspect of the ruling, the court provided crucial clarification on service jurisprudence by distinguishing between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. The court observed that the petitioners were appointed against properly sanctioned posts, possessed all requisite qualifications for their positions, and were not beneficiaries of any fraud or manipulation.
The court held that any procedural lapses in the appointment process could, at best, render the appointments irregular rather than void from the beginning. This important legal distinction reinforces employment security for properly qualified individuals appointed to legitimate positions, even when administrative procedures may have contained minor irregularities.
This comprehensive ruling not only provides relief to the affected employees but also establishes important legal precedents regarding administrative authority, proper delegation of powers, and the distinction between procedural irregularities and fundamentally flawed appointments in public sector employment.
