LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus BALDEV SINGH KHOSLA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
BALDEV SINGH KHOSLA
APRIL 19, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Se1vice Laiv :
Punjab State Co-operative Se1Vice (Class ll) Rules 1958:
C
Rule J{}-Probation--Outer limit of three years-Enabling provision to
allow the probationer to continue in service without being 1-evened or dis-
charged from service for failure to satisfacto1ily complete the pe1iod of proba-
tion-17iat ivould not 1nean that the probatione1; on expily of three years'
period must be deemed to have been confinne~17ie ntle itself envisages a
D positive order of confimzation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7793 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.94 of the Punjab &
E Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11874 of 1994.
Manoj Swamp for the appellant.
A.K. Aggarwal and P.N. Puri for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana made on September 14, 1994 in CWP No. 11874. The
respondent was promoted as an Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative
G Societies by proceedings dated March 21, 1990. Rule 10 of the Punjab State
Co-operative Service (Class II) Rules, 1958 enjoins that the promotee or
direct recruit would be put on probation for a period of two years provided
that the Government may allow service rendered on a post on an identical
cadre or in the higher post in another department to count for probation
H in the said service. Rule 10 reads as under :
600
STATE v. B.S. KHOSLA
601
"10. Probation. All members of the service shall on appointment A
remain on probation in the first instance for a period of two years,
provided that Govt. may allow service rendered on a post on an
identical cadre or in the higher post in another department to
count for probation in the post in the service.
2. Provided further that in the case of members promoted from
the State Service Class III continue officiating of four months or
over shall be reckoned as a period spent on probation.
B
3. If the work or conduct of any candidates or member during the
period of training or probation in the opinion of Government not C
satisfactory they may dispense with his service, if he has been
recruited by direct appointment or may reverr him to his former
post if he has been recruited by promotion or by transfer. On the
conclusion of the period of probation of any members of the
service, government, may, if vacancy exists, confirm him in his
appointment; if his work or conduct has, in its opinion been D
satisfactory may extend his period of probation by such period as
it may think fit and thereafter pass such orders as it could have
passed on the expiry of the first period of probation, provided that
the total period of probation, iµcluding extension, shall not exceed
three years in any case."
E
Though respondent had completed his probation on November 25,
1992, however, his probation was extended, in the meanwhile from time to
time. On September 15, 1993, a show cause notice was issued to him as to
why he should not be reverted to the substantive cadre. On consideration
of the reply to show cause notice, order came to be passed .on February ' F
11, 1994 reverting him to the substantive post from which he was promoted.
Consequently, he filed writ petition. The High Court has allowed the writ
petition holding that since he was not reverted before expiry of 3 years, he
must be deemed to have been confirmed and that, therefore, the reversion
order was held bad in law. The High Court did not express any opinion on G
the adverse remarks commented upon the performance of the respondent.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that since the rule
provides an outer limit of three years, if the respondent had not been
reverted within that period, he must be deemed to have been confirmed H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A
and the High Court, therefore, was right in concluding that the respondent
is a confirmed. probationer. We do not find force in the contention.
Sub-rule(3) of Rule 10 clearly envisages that on conclusion of the period
of probation of any member of the service the G0vernment may, if vacancy
exists, confirm him in his appointment; if his work or conduct has, in its
B
c
opinion, not been satisfactory, it may extend his period of probation by
such period as it may tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.