COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HUBLI Vs. R S MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 18-8-1999 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 607 of 1999 setting aside the order dated 25-9-1998, passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Application No. 17 of 1998 dismissing the application filed by the respondent, the State has come up in appeal by Special Leave. The respondent was put to notice, but despite receipt of notice, none has entered appearance on his behalf.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as a Police Constable on probation for a period of two years and six months. He joined service as a Police Constable on 2-6-1992. Though, the period of probation came to an end on 2-12-1994, the respondent however, continued on the post. On 14-3-1996, probation period of the respondent was extended by one year and three months. The respondent was discharged from service by an order dated 12-11-1997 in exercise of powers under Rule 6(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as his services during the period of probation were stated to be found unsatisfactory. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the respondent filed an application before the Tribunal on 24-12-1997 being Application No. 17 of 1998, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 25-9-1998. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent had filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which was allowed by the High Court setting aside the order of Tribunal and also the order discharging the respondent from service. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the continuance of the respondent on the post beyond the probation period or extended period, as the case may be, entitled him to have claimed deemed confirmation, in absence of specific order passed by the competent authority to that effect.