LexPARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU AND ORS. ETC. versus RAM RAKHA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
584
PARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU AND ORS. ETC.
v.
RAM RAKHA AND ORS. ETC.
March 22, 1979
[P. N. SH!NGl!AL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.]
Punjab Police Rule,s, 1959, Ru{,e3 3, 6, 8 and 10 Construction of-U'hen
appointnients to a post are from t1ro different sources, one by promotion
and another by direct recruitn1ent according to quota rule, whether the quota
rule would operate at both the stages of recruitn1ent and confinnation or· at
the stage ·of initial recruitn1ent only.
Deemed confirmation after the expiry of the period of probation and
cases when an express order of confirmation is necessary, pointed out.
Under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, recruitment
to
Punjah
Police Service (Deputy Superintendent of Police) is made from tv10 sources,
namely 80% by promotion and 20% through direct recruitment. lfnder R.u1e
10, seniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Pplice is
reckoned
accofding to the date of confirmation.
Consideration for nomination to
Indian Police Service is done according to seniority-cum-merit.
Respondent~ 1 and 2 in C.A. 2903/78 who were promotees to the cadre
of Deputy Superintendents of Police in February, 1961
and January,
1961
respectively v.·ere not confirmed even though
appellan~ and resp·:>ndents 5
to 8 who were recruited to the sa1ne cadre by direct appointment con1m1!n-
cing from May, 1961 to May, 1965 were confirmed.
They, theref.::>re,
filed
a Writ Pe!ition praying for a direction to con.firm them in the Pun,iab Police
Service, adhering to the quota rule at the time of confirmation as wdl. Ttey
alleged that a~ ~eniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police is
reckoned under rule 10, according to date of confirmation failure to confirm
in the post-available to them in breach of the relevant
rules,
had resulted'
in the denial of equality of opportunity in public service enshrined in Art.
15 of the Constitution at the time of consideration of their cases for non1i-
nation to the Indian Police Service which
i~ done according to seniority-cutn-
merit.
Allov.'ing the Writ Petition and directing the State to confirm them,
the
learned single judge held that the quota rule would operate not only at the
time of initial recruitment but also at the time of confirmatioll, as he was
of the opinion that the quota-rule i~ linked with the seniority rule.
Two Letter~ Patent Appeals, one filed by appellant No. 1 and another
by the State, were heard along with another Writ Petition filed by one Ram
Rakha urging identical
contentions.
The Writ Petition was allowed and
the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment modifying the directioa
given by the learned single judge to the extent that the State should consider
B
the case of the Writ petitioners for confirmation afresh according to quota
rule and then refix their inter-se seniority.
Dismissing the appeals, by special leave the Court
..
/
•
P. S. SANDHU V. RAM RAKHA
585
HELD : 1. When a first appointment or promotion i! made on probation for
a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the· post after the
expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation he should be
deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only in the absence of any
communication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or pro-
motion or the Service Rules.
In such a case, an express order of confirma-
tion is necessary to give the employee a substantive right to the post.
From
the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of
the specific period of probation he should not be deemed to have been con-
firmed.
This is so, when the relevant rules permitted extension of the Pro-
bationary period for an indefinite time. [592 A-CJ
Sukhbans Singh v. State of Puniab, [1963] 1 SCR 416, G. S. Ramaswamy
v. The Inspector General of Police, Mysore State Bangalore, [1964] 6 S.C.R.
278; State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali, [1966] 3 SCR 821; referred to.
2. Where the rules provide for a fixed period of probation with a power in
the' Government to extend it up to a specific period and not any unlimited
period, either by express provision or by necessary implication, at the end of
such specified period beyond which the Government had no power to extend
the probation, the probationer, if he continues beyond that period, 'lhould
be deemed to have been confirmed in the post. [592 C-E]
State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh. [1968) 3 SCR Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.