PRATAP SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 03-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
487 
PRATAP SINGH 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ANR. 
September 3, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Police Rules-Rule 12.8(1)-Appointment on a temporary 
basis 
against a temporary vacancy-Services terminated after three years-Termina-
tion-Validity of.. 
The services of the appellant, who was appointed as an Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police on July 2. 1973 were terminated in September 1977. The 
C 
High Court rejected his petition impugning the ordf;r of termination of his 
services. 
( 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that on completion of the three 
year period of probation in accordance with r. 12.8 ( 1) of the Punjab Police 
Rules the appellant should be deemed to have been confirmed in the post 
and that the order terminating his services was illegal. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : There is no legal error in the order passed by the Senior Superin~ 
D 
.._ 
tendent of Police terminating the appellant's services. 
[490C] 
1. It is well settled that a person is appointed on probation only when he is 
E 
appointed against a substantive post. 
The appellant, having been appOinted 
against a temporary vacancy, \Vas not on probation. 
Rule 12.8, which' deals 
with officials appointed on probation, does not apply to this case. 
[489 F·G] 
I 
2. Assuming that r. 12.8 ·was applicable, the officer could not be deemed 
to be confirmed unless there is any rule providing that, in the absence of an 
order of confirmation at the end of the probation, the employee must be 
presumed to be confirmed. 
There is no such provision in the present rules 
and hence the period of probation must be presumed to have been ext'ended. 
[489G] 
3. In the State of Punja& v. Dharam Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 1 this Court 
held that when a first appointment is made on probation for a specific period 
and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the 
period \Vithoiit any specific order of confirmation he should be deemed to 
continue in his post as a probationer only in the absence of any indication 
to the contrary in the original order of appointment or the Service Rules. 
In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the 
employee a substantive right to the post. 
[489B:CJ 
In the instant case since no order of confirmation had been passed after 
the appellant completed three years, it must be presumed that his probation 
bad been extended. 
F 
G 
B 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] 1 S.C.R. 
State of Puniab v. Dharam Singh [1968] 3 SCR applied. 
Supdt. of Police Ludhiana and Anr. v. Dwar.ka Das etc. etc. A.LR. 1979 
S.C. 336 over-ruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 924 of 1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
19-10-1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ 
Petition No. 3219/77. 
Appellant in person. 
JI. S. Marwah, R. N. Sachthey and A. Sachthey for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. 
This appea1 by special leave is direded against the 
judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing the Writ 
Petition filed by the appellant against the order of bis termination 
passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police.. The appellant was 
appointed on 2-7-1973 as a temporary Assistant Sub-Inspector of 
II) 
Police. On 26-9-1977, his services were terminated by the Senior 
Superintendent of Police. Against this order, the appellant moved the 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana but his 
petition was rejected. 
Thereafter, he came to this Court and after obtaining special leave 
from this Court, the appeal has been placed ·before us for hearing. 
E 
F 
G 
The short point taken by the appellant in this appeal is that under 
Rule 12.8(1) of Punjab Police Rules, the petitioner must 
be con-
sidered to be on probation for a period of three years and as 
the 
appellant has crossed this period of three years, he must be deemed 
to have been confirmed and, therefore, his services could not be termi-
nated. In support of this submission, reliance is placed by the appellant 
on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of The Superin-
tendent of Police, Ludhiana and Anr. etc. etc. v. Dwarka Das etc. 
etc.(I) Where Shinghal J. speaking for the Court observed as 
follows:-
"So if Rules 12.2(3) and 12.21 are read together, it 
will appear that the maximum period of probation in the case 
of a police officer of the rank of constable is three years,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.