IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15690 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:27.04.2011 Surjit Singh ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Sivia, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. J.C.Batra, Advocate, and Ms. Mamta Malik Rewar, Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. None for respondent No.4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Agriculture Department, exercising the power of Government under Section 42 of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Act of 1961. Through an earlier order passed by the Secretary, Mandi Board, Chandigarh, an allocation of the petitioner was made in his post as Auction Recorder from the Market Committee, Moga, to the Market Committee, Ajitwal. Along with him, two other persons in the post were Civil Writ Petition No.15690 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - also allocated to Ajitwal, one Labh Singh, who was the senior most Auction Recorder at Moga and another Ravinder Singh, who was an Auction Recorder at Badhi Kalan. 2. This was objected to at the instance of one Bhupinder Singh and Wazir Singh, who are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3, on the ground that they were seniors to the petitioner in their post as Auction Recorder at Moga and since the junior most person such as the petitioner was given an allocation to Ajitwal, he stole a march over them by a prospect of a promotion to a still higher post as Mandi Supervisor at the new Market Committee at Ajitwal. This allocation made to the petitioner was found to affect the seniority of respondents 2 and 3 herein and, accordingly, the order of allocation made to the petitioner was quashed through the impugned order in appeal. 3. It appears that the petitioner, apart from challenging the order of the Joint Secretary through the writ petition, had also filed an application for re-hearing of the case before the Joint Secretary. The application for re-hearing was withdrawn subsequently stating that he would pursue his remedy in the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that there was no particular rule permitting, who was entitled to be considered for allocation to the newly formed Market Committee and when such an allocation was made, it could not have affected the seniority position of respondents 2 and 3 since the petitioner was going to the new Committee and assigned to the last position in the seniority at the Market Committee at Ajitwal. Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, Civil Writ Petition No.15690 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 - however, points out that as a matter of fact the allocation itself was done without framing any policy for such allocation and there was no justification in picking out the senior most amongst the Auction Recorders, namely, Labh Singh and the junior most amongst them and leaving out for consideration of respondents 2 and 3, who were seniors to the petitioner. Such an allocation could not have been made without an option being given to them or considering them as fit for allocation at Ajitwal. The event that immediately followed in some way vindicated the objection of respondents 2 and 3, for, it appears that the petitioner obtained to the next higher promotion post before even respondents 2 and 3 gained such promotion at the Market Committee at Moga. At this length of time, in my view, it will be unnecessary to reallocate the petitioner to the Market Committee at Moga. If the respondents 2 and 3 have a grievance, it is that a person, who was junior to them, had gained a promotion in the Market Committee at Ajitwal before they were granted. Instead of referring the matter to the respondents for a reconsideration of an issue of allocation, in my view, interest of justice would be met if respondents 2 and 3 are considered as promoted to the next higher posts on the day when the petitioner was promoted to the Market Committee at Ajitwal. This, I am doing in the exercise of powers of the High Court under Article 226 to make substantial justice to the parties even though respondents 2 and 3 are not the petitioners making such a prayer. The impugned order itself does not make any direction that respondents 2 and 3, who were the petitioners before the Joint Secretary, did not obtain a right of allocation to the Market Committee at Civil Writ Petition No.15690 of 1990 (O&M) - 4 - Ajitwal. This direction, however, is granted to prevent any further litigation which is bound to occur if the petitioner were to be reallocated to Moga and the matter has to be taken up afresh for consideration of allocation of one of the officers from Moga to Ajitwal. The order is what is exigent under the circumstances. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction that the first respondent will treat respondents 2 and 3 as promoted to the post of Mandi Supervisor from the date when the petitioner was promoted as a Mandi Supervisor in the Market Committee at Ajitwal and all the benefits accruing by such an exercise shall be calculated and paid to them within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. The impugned order stands modified to conform to the direction as above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.04.2011 sanjeev