A N DHINGRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W. 1395 of 1970 and C.W. 557 of 1971, referred to a larger benchby our brothers, S. N. Shankar and H. L. Anand, JJ.

(2.) Before proceeding to dilate on the contentions raised in the two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the facts of each case may be stated. Briefly, they are as under:- C.W. 1395 of 1970:

(3.) The petitioner in this case entered Government service by being employed as Naib Nazir in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Abbottabad in the North West Frontier Province (now in Pakistan). Fie was appointed with effect from May 29. 1937 on probation for a period of three months, evidenced by copy of telegram dated May 18, 1937 (Anncxure III to the petition) and copy of office order dated May 18, 1937 (Annexlire IV to the petition). In the service book of the petitioner, however, there is an entry that he was "substantive (on probation)". The petitioner was selected for appointment after being successful in a test/examination held for recruitment to the post. Fie was confirmed as Naib Nazir with effect from July 20, 1938. During the period of probation there was no adverse remark made against or communicated to the petitioner. He could not be confirmed earlier, it is contended, as there were representations against his appointment and disposal of these representations and the appeals from the orders passed on the representations took some time. The petitioner was confirmed with effect from July 20, 1938, only after final disposal of the representations, ft is averred by the petitioner that some questions had even been raised in the Legislative Assembly of that province questioning the appointment. It is contended that all this delayed the passing of orders of confirmation.