AJIT SINGH & OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 10-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•' 
) 
·' 
I 
: 
517 
AJIT SINGH & OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER 
March 10, 1983 
[D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.) 
Civil service-Service rule prescribed probation of two years-Order of 
appointment stated probation as one year-Government, if competent to prescribe 
shorter period of probation. 
Probation-Meaning of-Object in prescribing. 
Interpretation-Mandatory or directory-TestJ for determining. 
The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 envisages the setting up of 
Trusts and the Trusts so set up were to be bodies corporate with perpetual sue .. 
cession and a common seaJ. The duti(:S and functions entrusted to the Trusts 
Jncluded, among others, preparation of schemes for improvement and expansion 
of towns in the State. For the purpose of manning the senior posts under the 
Trusts, the Act conferred power on the State Government to constitute certain 
services. One of the services constituted by the Government was the Punjab 
Service of Trust Executive Officers. Exercising power under the Act the State 
Government framed the Punjab Trust Services (Recruitment and Conditions of 
Service) RuJes, 1978, The Rules envisaged the setting up of a Selection Committee 
called tho Punjab Trust Services Selection Committee for selecting Officers. After 
folL>wing the procedure prescribed under the Rules, the Selection Committee 
recommended the appointment of the eleven petitioners herein to the posts of 
Trust Executive Officers, Class 1, II and III. The State Government accepted the 
recommendations of the Selection Committee and in May, 1979 appointed the 
petitioners to the respective posts. Condition (c) of the terms and conditions 
annexed to the order of appointment issued to each of the appointees stated : 
"AU the appointees shall remain on probation for a period of one year under 
rule 10(1) of the Rules. The regular appointments shall be subject to the satisM 
factory completion of the period of probation by such appointee after the expiry 
of one year from the date of his joining." On the completion of one year of ser .. 
vice an increment was released in favour of each of the appointees. 
In August, 1980 tho State Government dissolved 21 Trusts. Purporting to 
act under rule 9 of tho 1978 Rules, the Governor dispensed with immediate effect 
the services of each of the II petitioners after paying a moqth"s salary in lieu of a 
111onth's notice, 
-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
518 
SUPRBMB COURT REMRTS 
(1983J 2 S.C.ll. 
In their petitionS:filed under Anicle 32 of the Constitution impugning the 
order of the State Government dispensing with their services, the p.etitioners 
alleged that after they bad satisfactorily completed the period of probation of one 
year it was not oPen to the State Government to dispense with their services; the 
power to dissolve the Trusts was used by the Government to get rid or the peti-
tioners; that sometime after dispensing with their services the 
Trusts bad been 
reconstituted but even so they had not been recalled to their posts and that the 
action of the Government in the case was thoroughly arbitrary, actuated by extra· 
neous considerations. 
· 
In 
reply 
it was stated that under rule 9 (2) the State Government had 
power to dispense with the services of a probationer if his work 
and conduct 
during the period of probation were not satisfactory; payment of a month's pay 
in lieu of notice was made by way of abundant caution and that it could not con-
fer any right on the petitioners; the period of probation of one year, mentioned in 
clause (c) of the anncxure to the order of appointment was a typographicaJ~cum­
clerical error, which in terms of rule 9 (2) should have been two years in respect 
of direct recruits and lastly their se:rvices had been dispensed with because with 
. the dissolution of the Trusts the Executive Officers had become surplus and their 
continuance in)ervice would be an avoidable burden on the exchequer. 
It was contended on behalf of the State Government that the expression 
'shall' in rule 9 (1) on its own force would apply so that the direct recruits would 
automatically be on probation for a period or two years and no power or discre-
tion is conferred on anyone to reduce this period. 
Allowing petition, 
HELD : It is not necessary to prescribe a period of probation and the 
State Government as the appointing authority would have discretion in the matter 
subject to rules by which the appointment is governed. [

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.