A full Bench of the court comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi, Justice Sarojnei Saksena and Justice Iqbal Singh pronounced the reserved judgment in the case after the High Court had quashed their appointments in Yashwinder Singh Rana's case, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh's case.

Earlier, in Rana's case the High Court had found that the government had made as many as 7,737 appointments against 2,461 advertised posts. The High Court had earlier held that such appointments could not be made beyond the advertised posts and thus cancelled them.

Later, a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court which was dismissed, and was followed by a review petition which was again dismissed by the Apex Court. The government then gave 89 days appointments to such teachers without any further advertisement and even without selection.

The High court had in the case of Makhan Lal Garg, directed the Punjab Government to make fresh regular appointments and such directions were again repeated in Major Singh's case. The Chairman of the Selection Committee had also appeared before the High Court and stated that no benefits would be given to these 89-day appointees, even as the state Advocate General, in a contempt petition filed by a candidate seeking regular appointment, gave an undertaking before the court that no right would be given to 89-day appointees.

The services of these teachers were then finally terminated on November 13, 1997, and immediately thereafter the state brought an ordinance which was followed by an Act.

The full Bench judgment authored by Justice Saksena in its directions restrained the Punjab government from giving regular appointment to these teachers. It, however, held that all such teachers who had been recruited as a consequence of the advertisement dated January 12, 1996, be given appointment.

The full Bench also held that "the state cannot use legislative powers to nullify the judgment of the High Court or the Supreme Court without removing the defect pointed out by the court. It further held that "legislative powers cannot be used for conferring legitimacy to illegal appointment", as such an Act was contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and affected the basic structure of the Constitution. The state had earlier contended that such teachers who had experience of working in the government institutions constituted a special class, which the High Court has not accepted.