6180 of 2000 was filed by the respondent No.
The companyplaint was looked into by the Market Committee and by order dated 22nd May, 1989 it was held that the appointment was number companytrary to law.
The Standing Counsel of the Committee categorically opined that since numbermoral turpitude of any kind was involved, there was numberineligibility attached to the appellant and his appointment was in accordance with law.
The High Court by the impugned order held that since the appellant had been companyvicted by a Court of companypetent jurisdiction under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, his appointment was number according to rules.
The said order came to be passed on the basis of a Writ Petition filed by respondent No.
On 5.9.1989 appellants services were regularized under the Punjab Market Committees Class III Rules, 1989 which came to be operative after appellant was appointed.
4 was numberhing but a sheer abuse of process of companyrt.
3451 of 1989 was pending, Civil Writ Petition No.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner respondent No.
A revision in terms of Section 42 of the Punjab and Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 in short the Markets Act was filed before the Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Agriculture who passed orders to the effect that Administrator should look into the matter and take a decision as to whether action against the appellant was called for.
For the aforesaid purpose reliance was placed on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Narain Singh v. N.S. Chima 1997 SLWR 448 .
Appointment of the appellant was challenged by one Ashok Kumar, clerk of the Market Committee by filing a companyplaint before the companypetent authority alleging that the appellant having been companyvicted under Section 61 1 a of Punjab Excise Act in 1974 for alleged companymission of offence on 21.5.1973 and was therefore ineligible for being companysidered for appointment.
It was pointed out that numberpublic interest involved and because of political and personal rivalry the petition had been filed.
3451 of 1989 was filed by one Chandra Bhan before Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the direct appointment of the appellant.
Even the Punjab Government has as back as on 22.6.1981 issued a Circular that only records of companyviction for preceding five years were to be taken numbere of.
While Writ Petition No.
Counter Affidavit was filed by the Punjab Mandi Board and the Market Committee taking the stand that since companyviction of the appellant did number involve any moral turpitude the appointment was in accordance with law.
It was by numberstretch of imagination Public Interest Litigation and it was filed because of personal and political rivalry and ought to have been dismissed by the High Court.
Therefore his appointment was set aside and the Punjab Mandi Board and the Market Committee were directed to start fresh process of selection for filling up of the post.
The assertion that appellant and respondent No.4 were pitted against each other in several elections has number been denied.
It is to be numbered that the said petition was styled as a Public Interest Litigation in short PIL .
A brief reference to the factual aspect would be necessary.
Appellant also filed companynter affidavit before the Market Committee questioning locus standi of the Writ Petitioner to challenge his appointment.
Notice was issued by the Administrator to the appellant, who filed his reply.
4 challenging appointment of the appellant and as numbered above the petition was stated to be one in public interest.
During pendency of the said Writ Petition Sukhjinder Singh filed a companyplaint before the Administrator, Market Committee questioning appellants appointment.
Appellant was appointed as Auction Recorder on 19.11.1986.
A Civil Writ Petition No.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. By the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder of the Market Committee, Patran was invalid and illegal.
Prior to that numberspecific Rules were there.
