MADHUMEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner and respondent No. 3 were selected as Lady Circle Supervisors by direct recruitment through Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in September 1989. Respondent No. 3 was placed at No. 1 and petitioner at No. 2 in order of merit by the Commission. Both of them were ordered to be appointed in the department of Rural Development and Panchayats vide order Annexure P1. They were placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining of the post. Rule 13 of the Punjab Development and Panchayat (Class II) Service Rules, 1974, which governs the service conditions of the petitioner reads as under :-

(2.) Petitioner cleared her probation satisfactorily on 11.9.1991 whereas probation period of respondent No. 3 was extended from time to time and ultimately respondent No. 3 cleared her probation period on 22.2.1995 (Annexure P4). On a representation filed by respondent No. 3, order Annexure P5 has been passed amending order Annexure P4. By order Annexure P5, it was ordered that respondent No. 3 be treated to have completed her probation period satisfactorily on 13.9.1991.

(3.) Rule 13 ibid provides that in the case of members recruited by direct recruitment, the order of merit determined by the Commission shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority; it further provides under Note No. 2 that in case period of probation is extended under rule 12, the date of appointment shall be deemed to have been deferred in case the period of probation is extended. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the probation period of respondent No. 3 was extended under Note 2 of Rule 13, she became junior to the petitioner although she had been put senior to the petitioner in order of merit by the Commission; that order Annexure P5 modifying the earlier order was bad in law.