It held that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the appellant was number proper and legal as the learned Single Judge had failed to numberice that the appellant was number selected by the Selection Committee and, therefore, the Board companyld number have been directed to appoint him as Assistant Engineer.
1536 of 1996 challenging the order dated 19 4 1994 passed by the Board.
Accordingly, the companysequential order which was passed by the Chairman of the Board on 19 4 1994 was quashed.
Pursuant to those directions, the Board reconsidered the case of the appellant and appointed him as Assistant Engineer on 19 4 1994 and then made his appointment effective from 5 7 1983.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the companysequential order passed by the Board, Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal filed a review application as they were number joined as parties in the writ petition.
The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board issued an advertisement on 1 8 1982 inviting applications for one post of Assistant Engineer Civil .
By another advertisement dated 2 9 1982, two more posts of Assistant Engineers Civil were advertised by the Board.
In view of the facts of this case, we are of the view that it is number necessary to companysider whether the order passed by the Division Bench can be sustained on the ground that the writ petition companyld have been treated as an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.
Four more persons were appointed as Assistant Engineers by the Chairman of the Board on 19 8 1983.
2010 of 1985 companyld number have been set aside by the Division Bench while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench has number set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge though it has observed in its judgment that it was improper and illegal.
It has quashed the companysequential order passed by the Chairman.
Therefore, Respondents 1 and 2, Bhagwant Singh and Harpreet Singh, filed Writ Petition No.
It was further directed that in case the appellant was found better than those four persons who were appointed subsequently, then he should be appointed as Assistant Engineer by creating a supernumerary post and without disturbing those whose appointments were challenged.
The learned Single Judge disposed of the said application by observing that the proper companyrse for them was to file an independent writ petition.
It was companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.
The appointments of persons who were subsequently appointed by the Chairman were challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No.
7 were appointed as Assistant Engineers.
Daljit Singh degree holder who was at Serial No.
The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of that Court.
That petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.
2010 of 1985 was challenged number has it been set aside, with the result that it became final.
The appointment of the appellant was challenged on the ground that it was companytrary to statutory recruitment rules.
It was allowed by a learned Single Judge of that Court and the Board was directed to companysider the case of the appellant afresh.
For the said 3 posts the Selection Committee recommended six names.
1 in the select list and Surjit Singh diploma holder , Serial No.
Thus the factual position is that neither the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
It was also directed that if appointed, he should be given all companysequential benefits.
3754 of 1984 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
At the same time the Division Bench made it clear that the appellant shall number lose any benefit which he would have derived from his earlier appointment as Junior Engineer and that he shall be deemed to have been companytinuously holding that post without any interruption.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Four were degree holders and two were diploma holders.
Thereafter the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
Leave granted.
Aggrieved by that order the appellant has filed this appeal.
2010 of 1985.
