MIR MOHAMMAD KHASIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this appeal relates to the question of deemed confirmation on successful completion of period of probation in the service and an order to that effect having been passed by the employer, whereafter nothing further was required to be done, except the formality of passing an order of confirmation.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as ASI in the police department of the State of Andhra Pradesh and was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-3 in the year 1975. He was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-2 with effect from 1-3-1982. He was placed on probation. Sometime later his probation was terminated and he was reverted to his erstwhile cadre which was challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was allowed as a consequence thereof, an order was issued on 6-10-1989 declaring that the appellant had satisfactorily completed the period of probation with effect from 27-1-1987 in relaxation of Rule 7(e) of Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966 (for short 'the A.P.P.S. Rules').

(3.) In the seniority list of the officers of the State Police Service dated 1-6-1989, he was placed at serial No. 103. The names of the private respondents were placed at serial Nos. 118 and 125. The eligible candidates, for selection to the Indian Police Service, from the State Police Services, were due for consideration for which a selection was held on 5-1-1990 and the select list for 1989 was prepared but the name of the appellant did not appear in the list. The private respondents shown junior to the appellant in the seniority list were considered and selected. The appellant was not considered by the Selection Committee with a remark that he was not yet confirmed. This fact was verified by the Central Administrative Tribunal by perusing the record of the selection in question. As a matter of fact, there is no denial that the appellant was not considered for selection to the cadre of Indian Police Service on the ground that he was not confirmed. However, according to the appellant, he would be deemed to be confirmed in view of the State Government dated 6-10-1989 saying that the appellant had satisfactorily completed the period of probation in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category 2. The said order of the State Government is reproduced below :