PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONFIRMATION plays a vital role in Government service, but very often the Central and State Legislature do not specify the point of time of confirmation and such omission invariably gives rise to inevitable litigation by the Government servants when an order of termination simpliciter is passed against them. In this context this petition throws up a question for consideration whether the Petitioner, who was appointed a police constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Department on 7th October, 1977, continued to be temporary until 8 -10 -1987, that is for about a decade when his services were terminated.

(2.) IT is averred by the Petitioner that Regulation 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations has fixed the probation period of a recruit in police force at 2 years and, therefore, on the expiry of that period if his services are not terminated on account of unsuitability or misconduct, then he will stand confirmed by implication.

(3.) IT is stated in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner was temporary and he was never confirmed and, therefore, the impugned order of termination simpliciter is perfectly legal and no enquiry was required in his case.