AMARJIT SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed suit for declaration to the effect that termination of his services on 17.11.1977 was void. His case is that he joined Army in 1963 and was discharged in May 1968. He joined service in the State of Punjab as Deputy Director, Agriculture (Grapes) on 18.9.1974. He passed departmental examination on 22.4.1976. He completed probation period of two years under Rule 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Service (Class I) Rules, 1974 and maximum period of probation was three years. No order was passed extending period of probation. He was, thus, automatically deemed to have been confirmed. Adverse remarks for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76 were expunged in 1977. His army service was also to be deemed as period spent on probation. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3991 of 1977 but on an assurance of the Minister, he withdrew the writ petition and later on, order of termination was not withdrawn. He filed suit on 20.9.1980.

(2.) The suit was contested, inter alia, on the plea that in the letter of appointment, it was mentioned that his appointment will be governed by the Punjab Agricultural Service (Class I) Rules, 1947 under which probation period cold be up to four years. The 1974 rules came into force w.e.f. 2.12.1974 after appointment of the plaintiff. He could not be deemed to have been confirmed in service. His annual confidential reports for the years 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 were adverse and conveyed to him. In the year 1977-78, his integrity was 'doubtful'. His representation against adverse remarks was rejected on 22.9.1977. Benefit of National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 was not applicable. No assurance was given by the Minister.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit. In para 12, it was observed that appointment was on temporary basis and, therefore, even if period of probation had expired, he could not be treated to have been confirmed in service. There was enough material to justify the stand that work and conduct of the plaintiff was 'below average' and his integrity was 'doubtful'. It was also observed that there was nothing to show that any assurance was given by the Minister and that writ petition was withdrawn on that account. It was also held that army service not being on a corresponding post, could not be treated towards probationary period.