CWP No. 16982 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16982 of 1991 Date of Decision: 21.10.2011 Sarup Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Bachhittar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioners were working as Head Clerks in Market Committees, Phagwara, Malerkotla and Dhuri, respectively. They seek quashing of the provisions contained in the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class-II) Service Rules, 1988 to the extent these rules are disadvantageous or detrimental to their interest, especially Rule 8 and Appendix-B pertaining to the 'method of recruitment' and laying down qualifications for appointment to the post of Secretary, Market Committee. The petitioners also sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the circular dated 26.10.1989 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Punjab Mandi Board and to consider and promote them as Secretaries of the Market Committees. CWP No. 16982 of 1991 [2] 2. The above-stated controversy at the time of filing of the writ petition had been somewhat settled in favour of the petitioners by a co-ordinate Bench vide orders dated 13.05.1991 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6422 of 1988 (Surjit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another) and Civil Writ Petition No. 5039 of 1984 Surjit Singh and others V. State of Punjab decided on 13.05.1991. 3. The above cited decisions of the co-ordinate Bench were further upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 679 of 1991. The present writ petition was not decided in terms of the these decisions as meanwhile the respondents preferred Special Leave Petition No. 10641 of 1991 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein ad-interim stay order was passed on 02.07.1991. The present case was adjourned to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The office has reported that the above-stated Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.01.1996 as is also apparent from the photo stat copy of an order handed over by the Board officials to their learned counsel which is marked as Mark-A. Learned counsel for respondent-Board submits that the above-stated photostat copy has been handed over to him along with written instructions contained in letter dated 19.10.2011 which are also taken record and is marked as Mark-B. 5. It thus appears that the decision of the learned Single Judge relies upon by the petitioners has attained finality. Be that as it may, since there is a little confusion regarding the correct number of the Special Leave Petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this CWP No. 16982 of 1991 [3] writ petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to re-verify the correct facts and if it is found that the decision of this Court dated 13.05.1991 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6422 of 1988 (Surjit Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another) (Annexure P-4) has attained finality, to extend consequential benefits flowing therefrom in favour of the petitioners as well. However, in case the said decision has been modified or set-aside, the petitioners as well as the respondents shall be bound by such modified or final order passed by the superior Court. Disposed of. 21.10.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE