BARKAT RAM Vs. COLLECTOR, FEROZEPORE ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to have been appointed on temporary basis against a permanent post of Patwari on June 25, 1969 impugns the order dated June 27, 1972 passed by Collector. Ferozepore (Annexure 'A') whereby he has been retrenched from service in order to accommodate the disbanded staff of he Consolidation Department.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner is that in terms of the Punjab Revenue Patwaris Class III Service Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules) he being a member of the service had completed more than 3 years by the time the impugned order was passed and with the lapse of these 3 years he should have been taken to have been appointed to the post on permanent basis as in terms of those Rules the period of probation could not be taken beyond 3 years. It deserves to be noticed that no return has been filed by any of the respondents controverting this stand of his.

(3.) As per the above-noted rules, service has been defined to mean the Punjab Revenue Patwaris Class III Service, Rule 3 provides that the 'service' is comprised of the post shown in Appendix 'A' to the rules. In Appendix 'A' the number of posts of Patwaris and Assistant Patwaris are specified district wise. The proviso to rule 3 authorises the Government to add or reduce or create new posts with different designations and scales of pay whether permanently or temporarily. Rule 14 fixeds the period of probation. Sub-clause (i) of Clause 'O' of sub-rule 3 lays down that on completion of the period of probation of a person the appointing authority may confirm such person from the date of his appointment, if appointed against a permanent vacancy. Proviso to sub-rule 3 lays down that the total period of probation including extension, if any, shall not exceed three years. In the light of the above-noted rule, it is patent that with the expiry of the period of probation the petitioner who had been appointed against a permanent post acquired the right to hold that post. That being the situation his services could not be terminated without compliance of the rules or the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of the return on behalf of the respondents there is nothing for me to disbelieve the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition.