IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.14322 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:24.08.2011 Amarjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) C.M. No.10948 of 2011 This is an application for placing on record judgment dated 10.7.2006 passed in C.W.P. No.14790 of 2003. Application is allowed and judgment dated 10.7.2006 passed in C.W.P. No.14790 of 2003 is taken on record. C.W.P. No.14322 of 2011 This petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 14.1.2011 passed by respondent No.1 and for further direction to the respondents to grant deemed date of promotion to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that power under Section 33(4)(i) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act') has been exercised and the promotion of the petitioner has been cancelled whereas he was considered on the basis of seniority-cum- merit and found eligible for promotion to the post of Accountant. The power under Section 33(4)(i) of the Act has not been exercised in public C.W.P. No.14322 of 2011 (O&M) -2- interest and order of promotion was appealable but no appeal was filed. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the promotion order as well as impugned order and other documents on file. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant and admittedly, the post was to be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum- merit. Other persons, who were senior to the petitioner were not considered and one Surinder Kumar Roy filed C.W.P. No.14790 of 2003 before this Court and the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has passed the departmental test which would make him eligible for being considered for promotion. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had not passed the departmental test. He had claimed that it was not necessary to pass the test. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner, respondent No.5 and any other eligible persons for promotion in accordance with the amended rules.” Although specific directions were issued there for consideration of the case of Surinder Kumar Roy but only in the order passed in favour of the petitioner, it has been mentioned that Surinder Kumar Roy was considered but he was not found eligible for promotion and no specific order has been passed in compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 10.7.2006. Moreover, the powers under Section 33(4)(i) of the Act are to be exercised to cancel the proceedings, decision or action of the Committee. C.W.P. No.14322 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Section 33 of the Act is reproduced as under:- “33. Power to call information, inspect, enforce attendance and to suspend actions, etc. of Committees: (4) (i) The Board may by order in writing, annul any proceedings of a committee or sub-committee or joint committee or ad hoc committee, which it considers not to be in conformity with law or with the rules or by laws made thereunder and may do all things necessary to secure such conformity or may suspend any resolution which it considers likely to cause injury or annoyance to the public or is likely to affect adversely the interest of the committee or of producers or dealers or any class of functionaries working in the notified market area concerned.” Power has been exercised under Section 33(4)(i) of the Act and the promotion order of the petitioner has been cancelled and decision taken by the Committee has been annulled. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no public interest was involved, is not going to help as the consideration for promotion of the petitioner was without constitution of a Committee and the reasons were not mentioned, as to why the recommendation of the Secretary Market Committee was ignored and why the departmental promotion committee was not constituted. There is no merit in the argument and petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. August 24, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE C.W.P. No.14322 of 2011 (O&M) -4-