Partly allowed

Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2012CWP/19879/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before his promotion resolution was set aside. The Court directed the Board to conduct a hearing and pass a fresh order on the petitioner's promotion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order pertaining to his promotion.

Parkash Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 19879 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 19879 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 9.11.2012

Parkash Singh

.. Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal, J.

¶14

The petitioner herein is aggrieved against the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the resolution dated 27.7.2011 passed by the Market Committee, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, promoting the petitioner from Auction Recorder to Mandi Supervisor-cumFee Collector, has been set aside.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that before setting aside the resolution passed by the Market Committee, in terms of which the petitioner was promoted, he was not given any opportunity of hearing.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, on instructions from Shri Kuljit Singh, Secretary, Market Committee, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, did not dispute the fact that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner by respondent no. 2, however, he submitted that the action was taken by the Board as the resolution passed by the Market Committee was totally illegal.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 was fair enough to state that hearing can be afforded to the petitioner. However, till such time, status quo should remain and the parties will abide by the order to be passed by the Board after hearing the petitioner.

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 19879 of 2012

¶19

-2-

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made by them, in my opinion, the present writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order pertaining to the promotion of the petitioner from Auction Recorder to Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector, for which the resolution was passed by the Market Committee. For the purpose, the petitioner shall appear before the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, on 19.11.2012 at 11.00 A.M.

¶21

Ordered accordingly.

¶22

The earlier order passed by the Board and consequent order passed by the Market committee shall not be given effect to. The parties will abide by the fresh order to be passed by the Board. Status quo as exists today shall be maintained by the parties till then.

¶23

The petition stands disposed of.

¶24

9.11.2012 vs

¶25

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkash Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Anand & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Roop Lal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Nakul Kundra Vs Guru Nanak Dev University and Ors.

Jyoti Paul and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rama Shankar Yadav Vs the Presiding Officer and Ors.