RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) THE case in hand is a classic example of generation of unavoidable litigation by the State and also mis -use of power.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant in the office of Rural Development and Panchayat Minister, Government of Punjab, has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order dated 22.12.2011, whereby the order dated 16.12.2011 regarding his deputation and absorption in Punjab Mandi Board as District Mandi Officer, was cancelled. Further, the prayer is for issuance of a fresh order in terms of the directions given by the Minister In -charge, as per office note dated 22.12.2011. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 16.1.1991 and is presently working as Senior Assistant in the office of Rural Development and Panchayat Minister, Government of Punjab. He passed his MBA from Punjab Technical University after qualifying M.A. And M. Phil (History). Finding that 15 posts of District Mandi Officer were lying vacant in Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board because none of the Deputy District Mandi Officer in the feeder cadre was fulfilling the requisite qualifications and experience for promotion, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Agriculture Minister. It is further claimed that the petitioner fulfils all the qualifications for the post of District Mandi Officer. In para No. 3 of the writ petition, it is pleaded that though at present the petitioner was posted in the office of Agriculture Minister, however, earlier had served with Hon'ble   Chief Minister, Rural Development and Panchayat Minister, Excise and Taxation Minister, Transport Minister and the Education Minister, hence had a long experience. On the request of the petitioner, the Agriculture Minister vide note dated 19.10.2011 approved the posting of the petitioner to the post of District Mandi Officer on deputation and absorbing him in Mandi Board by relaxing Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class I) Service Rules, 1988 (for short, 'the Rules'). Vide order dated 16.12.2011, endorsed on 21.12.2011 (Annexure P -4), the petitioner was appointed on deputation as District Mandi Officer and absorbed as such in Mandi Board. On the very next day, namely, 22.12.2011, the order dated 16.12.2011, endorsed on 21.12.2011, was withdrawn. The petitioner filed CWP No. 262 of 2012 challenging the order dated 22.12.2011, but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 5.1.2012.
(3.) IT is further pleaded that prior to that, the Minister In -charge himself had passed the order in the file on 22.12.2011 directing appointment of the petitioner on the post of District Mandi Officer on deputation and absorption there. However, the order was not implemented on the plea that Code of Conduct had come into operation on account of ensuing elections. Despite that, the petitioner was not permitted to join in Mandi Board. It is with this grievance that the petitioner is before this court.;