Punjab High Court Delivers Major Relief to Market Committee Employees
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted substantial relief to dozens of Class III and IV employees working in various market committees across Punjab. The court has quashed termination orders issued by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, commonly known as the Mandi Board, providing a reprieve to long-serving staff members who faced job loss after over 14 years of service.
Court's Verdict on 2011 Appointments
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar delivered a detailed verdict on February 9, disposing of 18 interconnected writ petitions. The court held that the appointments made in 2011, while suffering from procedural irregularities, were not illegal and could not be cancelled after such an extended period of continuous employment. The employees had been appointed to roles such as auction recorder, clerk, peon, chowkidar, and caretaker following advertisements in 2011, merit lists based on academic qualifications, and approval resolutions by respective market committees.
The Mandi Board had attempted to annul these appointments, citing reasons such as inadequate advertisement, the appointment of overqualified candidates for lower-level posts, and an alleged violation of a 2011 Chief Minister's meeting directive that called for transparent recruitment through C-DAC. However, Justice Brar quashed the cancellation orders dated August 1, 2025, and directed the release of salary arrears and consequential benefits for periods actually worked, to be completed within six weeks.
Key Legal Reasoning Behind the Decision
Justice Brar's ruling was grounded in several critical legal points. Firstly, 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 deemed invalid. The court found that the original proposal lacked authorisation through a proper board resolution and appeared to have been initiated unilaterally by the Secretary himself.
Secondly, reliance on the minutes of a March 30, 2011 meeting chaired by the then Chief Minister was described as "wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law." The court emphasized that these minutes carried no statutory force and could not override or amend the governing 1989 Service Rules.
Thirdly, the market committee was affirmed as the competent appointing authority under statutory rules for Class III and IV posts. Minor procedural lapses, such as limited newspaper publication or the absence of a written test—which is not mandated by the rules—were considered irregularities at best, not illegalities. The appointments were made against sanctioned posts to qualified candidates with substantial compliance to rules, and no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or total disregard of statutory mandates was presented.
Impact on Employees and Public Interest
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. Many of these employees are now over-aged for alternative employment, making job loss particularly harsh. Public employment carries an assurance of stability and security, and unsettling experienced employees at this stage would deprive the state of their valuable services, contrary to public interest.
The court clarified that its findings on the invalid delegation are confined to these specific petitions and cannot reopen other unassailed orders passed under the same delegation. It also permitted the Secretary of the 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.
This ruling follows earlier attempts by the Mandi Board to cancel these appointments in 2012, which were set aside by the high court in 2019 with directions for a fresh hearing. The latest decision reinforces judicial protection for employees who have served diligently for years, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the long-term implications of administrative actions in public sector employment.
