COMMANDANT, 11 TH BATTALION, A.P. SPECIAL POLICE (IR), CUDDAPAH, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT versus B. SHANKAR NAIK

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 25-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
; 
COMMANDANT, I !TH BATTALION, A.P. SPECIAL POLICE (IR), 
A 
CUDDAPAH, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT 
v. 
B. SHANKAR NAIK 
APRIL 25, 2003. 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules-Rule ll(a)-A.P. State and C 
Subordinate Service Rules, 1962-Rule 13-A (a)(i)-A.P. State and 
Subordinate Service Rules1 1996-Rule 16(j)(i) and 17(5)-A.P. Special 
Armed Police Service Rules-Rules 6 and 7-Manual for Andhra Pradesh 
Police Recruits Schools--Para 10-Appointment of Constables-Probation-
10 months basic training and passing language test withfn probation period D 
required-Recruits discharged on the ground of failure to successfully 
complete the training-Extension under Manual not provided-Plea that 
successful completion of training not required-Held : Authorities justified 
in discharging the recruits as they failed lo success/11lly complete the training-
S11ccess/11I completion of training is an inbuilt requirement for continuance-
However, in the interest_ of justice extension of one month granted for successful E 
completion of training in terms of para 10 of the Manual. 
Respondents, appointed as Constables, were placed on probation. The 
condition stipulated in the appointment order was that they should pass the 
language test within the period of probation and in case of failure they shall F 
be discharged from the service; and that they should undergo IO months basic 
training. Services of the respondents were discharged on the ground that they 
had failed to pass the prescribed test within the prescribed period of probation. 
The order of discharge was challenged on the ground that they were exempted 
from passing the language test under Rule 14 of A.P. State and Subordinate 
Service Rules, 1962. The challenge was not accepted hence they approached G 
State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal 
holding that they had not successfully completed the training. The Tribunal's 
order was challenged before the High Court and it held that the orders of 
dismissal were not tenable, since the concerned Constables were entitled to 
exemption and since the order of appointment did not refer to any other test H 
905 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A in which the selected recruits were required to come out successful. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the orders of discharge 
were passed on several grounds viz. failure to pass the language test and 
secondly, non completion of the training; and that even if it was conceded that 
the recruits were exempted from passing the language test, yet it could not 
B be lost sight of that the very purpose of undergoing training is to successfully 
complete it and in case of unsuccessful completion of the training there was 
no scope for seeking continuance. 
Respondents contended that the appointment orders only referred to the 
C period of probation and the language test and there was no requirement of 
coming out successful in the training. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELO: I.I. The order of appointment clearly stipulates that the recruits 
D should undertake ten months basic training. Obviously, the training which is 
given cannot be rendered purposeless. If it is accepted that the tlppointment 
order did not require coming out successful in the training, it would mean 
that the training was intended to be a meaningless and purposeless exercise 
without having any relevance. This certainly cannot be the intention. A person 
who is sent for training is required to comprehend as to what is the effect of 
E the training. If after completion of the training, it is found by the authorities 
that the trainee has not succeeded in the test conducted after training, the 
inevitable conclusion is that he has not undertaken training successfully. It 
has to be construed that the requirements stipulated in the appointment orders 
were not fully complied with. When the recruit was to undertake ten months 
F basic training, it obviously means successful completion of the training. 
Undisputedly, the same has not been done. The authorities were justified in 
passing the order ofdischarge.1909-F-H; 910-AI 
1.2. Conspectus of provisions under Rule I l(a) of A.P. Police 
Subordinate Service Rules, Rules 16(t)(i) and 17(5) of A.P. State and 
G Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and rules 6 and 7 of A.P. Special Armed 
Police Service Rules provide a further basis for the conclusion that 

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