AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 2027 of 1967 (Amar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others), 25 of 1968 (Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana and Others), 919 of 1968 (Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana and Others), 1464 of 1967 (Sant Singh v. State of Haryana and Others), 1693 of 1967 (Ram Kishore Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana and Others), and 1773 of 1967 (Chaman Lal Setia v. State of Haryana and Others), as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions. Civil Writs No. 202 of 1967, 919 of 1968, 1693 of 1967 and 1773 of 1967 are against the same order and are dealt with in the first instance. These petitioners were appointed as temporary Block Development Officers by the State of Punjab on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. They were already in the service of the State in various Departments where their liens were kept. On appointment they were placed on two years' probation on the condition that the post continued. The period of probation could be extended as and when considered necessary. No maximum period of probation, however, was prescribed. The petitioners were liable to be reverted even without notice if their work and conduct during the period of probation were not found to be satisfactory. It was further provided in the appointment letter that "the post is temporary but likely to continue. His confirmation on the post of Block Development Officer will be subject to condition that the post is made permanent and to his passing the departmental examination. After the expiry of the period of probation and before his confirmation as Block Development Officer, Chaudhry Amar Singh is liable to reversion from the post of Block Development Officer without assigning any reason on giving one month's notice." I have taken this condition from the appointment letter which was issued to Chaudhry Amar Singh petitioner. The appointment letters of other petitioners also contain a similar condition. On April 22, 1964, the following communication was issued, with regard to Chaudhry Amar Singh, by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Development and Panchayat Department, to the Commissioner, Agricultural Production and Rural Development, Punjab :-

(2.) It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Block Development and Panchayat Officers junior to the petitioners were retained in service while the petitioners were reverted. This fact is admitted in the written statements, but it is pleaded that the orders were valid and reliance is placed on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prem Parkash Midha, 1969 SLR 655which is reproduced below :-

(3.) No other point has been argued in these petitions.