Disposed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2012CWP/22041/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the setting aside of an appointment resolution by the Market Committee, the High Court directed the Board to afford an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order on the appointment. The court suspended the impugned order and maintained the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to afford opportunity of hearing to petitioners and pass a fresh order; earlier order and Market Committee resolution not to be given effect; status quo maintained.

Jyoti Paul and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 22041 of 2012

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 22041 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 9.11.2012

¶6

Jyoti Paul and others

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶12

Present: Mr. P. K. Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶14

Rajesh Bindal, J.

¶15

The petitioners herein are aggrieved against the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the resolution dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Market Committee, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur, appointing petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as Auction Recorder and petitioner no. 3 as Clerk, has been set aside.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were selected by the respondents after following proper procedure.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioners is that before setting aside the resolution passed by the Market Committee, in terms of which the petitioners were appointed, they were not given any opportunity of hearing.

¶18

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 petitioners 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.

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 22041 of 2012

¶20

(2)

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 was fair enough to state that hearing can be afforded to the petitioners. 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 petitioners.

¶22

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 petitioners and pass a fresh order pertaining to the appointment of the petitioners, for which the resolution was passed by the Market Committee. For the purpose, the petitioners shall appear before the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, on 19.11.2012 at 11.00 A.M.

¶23

Ordered accordingly.

¶24

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.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶27

9.11.2012 vs

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Paul and Ors. 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.

Parkash Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nakul Kundra Vs Guru Nanak Dev University and Ors.

Rama Shankar Yadav Vs the Presiding Officer and Ors.