Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has set aside Punjab Mandi Board’s decision to cancel the appointments of several Class III and IV employees, holding the board’s secretary lacked the legal authority to annul their recruitment.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed these orders while disposing of a batch of petitions filed by employees appointed in market committees in 2011. The petitioners challenged orders passed on Aug 1, 2025, by which the board cancelled resolutions approving their appointments.The petitions were filed by employees who were appointed between 2011 and 2012 as clerks, auction recorders, chowkidars, peons, and caretakers in market committees across Punjab. Their appointments were earlier approved through resolutions passed by market committees.The controversy arose when the board, through its secretary, cancelled resolutions approving these appointments, citing alleged irregularities in the recruitment process, including publication of advertisements in only one newspaper and non-compliance with directions issued during a meeting chaired by the chief minister (CM) in March 2011.However, the HC held the delegation of powers under Section 33(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, to the secretary of the board was legally flawed. While the law allows the board to delegate its powers with prior govt approval, the court found no evidence that the board itself passed a resolution authorising such delegation. As a result, the approval granted by the state govt in 2002 was declared invalid, rendering the secretary incompetent to pass the impugned orders.The court also rejected the board’s reliance on the minutes of a meeting chaired by the chief minister on March 30, 2011, which recommended recruitment through C-DAC for transparency. Justice Brar observed that the minutes did not amount to statutory rules or binding executive instructions and could not override the Punjab Market Committees (Class III and IV) Service Rules, 1989.Clarifying the law on service jurisprudence, the court distinguished between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments, observing the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts, possessed the requisite qualifications, and were not beneficiaries of fraud or manipulation. Any procedural lapse, the court held, could at best render the appointments irregular and not void ab initio.
