PARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU AND ORS. ETC. v. RAM RAKHA AND ORS. ETC.
Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 584; 1979 INSC 72
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: P.N. SHINGAL , D.A. DESAI
Judgment date:
Case summary
1979 INSC 72. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1979-03-22. PARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU AND ORS. ETC. v. RAM RAKHA AND ORS. ETC. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 3 s. c. R. PARAMJIT SINGH SANDHU AND ORS. ETC. v. RAM RAKHA AND ORS. ETC. March 22, 1979 [P. N. SH! NGl! AL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ. ] Punjab Police Rule,s, 1959, Ru{,e3 3, 6, 8 and 10 Construction of-U'hen appointnients to a post are from t1ro different sources, one by promotion and another by direct recruitn1ent according to quota rule, whether the quota rule would operate at both the stages of recruitn1ent and confinnation or· at the stage ·of initial recruitn1ent only. Deemed confirmation after the expiry of the period of probation and cases when an express order of confirmation is necessary, pointed out. Under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, recruitment to Punjah Police Service (Deputy Superintendent of Police) is made from tv10 sources, namely 80% by promotion and 20% through direct recruitment. lfnder R. u1e 10, seniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Pplice is reckoned accofding to the date of confirmation.
Consideration for nomination to Indian Police Service is done according to seniority-cum-merit. Respondent~ 1 and 2 in C. A. 2903/78 who were promotees to the cadre of Deputy Superintendents of Police in February, 1961 and January, 1961 respectively v. ·ere not confirmed even though appellan~ and resp·:>ndents 5 to 8 who were recruited to the sa1ne cadre by direct appointment con1m1! n-cing from May, 1961 to May, 1965 were confirmed. They, theref. ::>re, filed Writ Pe! ition praying for a direction to con. firm them in the Pun,iab Police Service, adhering to the quota rule at the time of confirmation as wdl. Ttey alleged that a~ ~eniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police is reckoned under rule 10, according to date of confirmation failure to confirm in the post-available to them in breach of the relevant rules, had resulted' in the denial of equality of opportunity in public service enshrined in Art.
15 of the Constitution at the time of consideration of their cases for non1i-nation to the Indian Police Service which i~ done according to seniority-cutn-merit. Allov. 'ing the Writ Petition and directing the State to confirm them, the learned single judge held that the quota rule would operate not only at the time of initial recruitment but also at the time of confirmatioll, as he was .. of the opinion that the quota-rule i~ linked with the seniority rule. Two Letter~ Patent Appeals, one filed by appellant No. 1 and another by the State, were heard along with another Writ Petition filed by one Ram Rakha urging identical contentions. The Writ Petition was allowed and the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment modifying the directioa given by the learned single judge to the extent that the State should consider the case of the Writ petitioners for confirmation afresh according to quota rule and then refix their inter-se seniority.
Dismissing the appeals, by special leave the Court P. S. SANDHU V. RAM RAKHA 585 HELD : 1. When a first appointment or promotion i! made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the· post after the expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only in the absence of any communication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the Service Rules. In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a substantive right to the post. From T the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of ' the specific period of probation he should not be deemed to have been confirmed. This is so, when the relevant rules permitted extension of the Probationary period for an indefinite time. [592 A-CJ Sukhbans Singh v. State of Puniab, [1963] 1 SCR 416, G. S. Ramaswamy v.
The Inspector General of Police, Mysore State Bangalore, [1964] 6 S. C. R. 278; State of U. P. v. Akbar Ali, [1966] 3 SCR 821; referred to. 2. Where the rules provide for a fixed period of probation with a power in the' Government to extend it up to a specific period and not any unlimited period, either by express provision or by necessary implication, at the end of such specified period beyond which the Government had no power to extend the probation, the probationer, if he continues beyond that period, 'lhould be deemed to have been confirmed in the post. [592 C-E] State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh. [1968) 3 SCR I explained. 3. Rule 8 of the Punjab Service Rules, 1959 prescribe!. a period of probation of two years and the proviso confers power to extend the period of probation by not beyond one year meaning thereby that in any case the Government would not have the power to extend the period of probation beyond a• period of three years.
[593 A-B·I In this situation, (a) the ratio of Dharani Singh's case ·would muratis 1nurandis apply and the direct recruits who completed the period of probation of tw'O years and in the absence of an extension of probationary period would be deemed to be confirmed by necessary implication. [593 B-C] / (b) If seniority is to be reckoned from the date of confirmation and if promotees are not confirmed for years together in some cases, while direct recruits who came much later got confirmed and . i'pso facto became senior to the pron1otees, if quota rule is only applied at the time of initial rei. :. ruit· ment, this undesirable result i!. wholly unavoidable. [593 C-D] 4. Where recruitment to a cadre is from two sources and the Service Rules pre~cribe quota for recruitment for both sources, a question would alwa~s anse, whether the quota rule would apply at the initial stage of recru1~rnent or als~ at the stage of confirmation.
Ordinarily, if quota is prescnbed for recruitment to a cadre, the quota rule \vill have to be observed at the recruitment stage. The quota would then be c0--related to vacancies to be filled in by recruitment but after recruitment is made from two diffe- • rent . sources they will have to be integrated into a cow. man cadre and while so doing the question of their inter se seniority would surface. [593 F-G] r Seniority is ordinarily determined from the date of entry into cadre on the principle of continuous officiation. Confirmation in a post would ordinari~ ly depend upon such circumstances as satisfactory completion of probationary period, efficiency in the discharge of duty, capacity to discharge functions of the post, availability of permanent vacancy etc. Now, if seniority is to be determined according to the date of confirmation and the quota rule '.
s not made relatable to confirmation in various posts falling vacant in the cadre it would directly impinge upon the seniority of members of the service. [593 G- H. 594 Al S. B. Patwardhan and Ors. etc. v. State of 'A1aharashtra, [1977] 3 SCR 77 5 @ 797; referred to. 5. A harmonious reading of rules 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 makes it clear that the qllota rule is operative both at the time of initial recruitment and . ot the time of confirmation. The recruitment to Punjab Police Service is from two sources. Recruits from both the sources have to be on probation.
Adcpting the construction that the proviso to Rule 8(b) permitting a maximum period of probation of three years at the end of which the direct recruit v;1ould automatically be confirmed unless his services are dispensed with simultaneously enjoying seniority from the date of such automatic confirmation without applying quota rule at the time of confirmation, would put the promotee to an unintended disadvantage who may be continued in an officiating capacity without confirming him and consequently denying or relegating him do\vn in seniority for years as has happened in the case of respondeets 1 • and 2. Such an approach would be wholly unreasonable more so ¥. 'hen 1here was not the slightest suggestion that their services were not satisfactory and that the confirmation was denied on ,any such ground, thereby directly affecting their places in the seniority list. [594 C-F, H] If the other view that the quota rule would apply both at the tim1!
of recruitment and at the time of confirmation, is adopted rule 10 which provides for seniority according to the date of confirmation would certainly be saved from the vice of unreasonableness. [594 G] The quota rule is linked up with the seniority rule. Quota rule is linked up with seniority rule because, not the date of entry in service determines the seniority but the date of confirmation determines seniority. Quota rule being inextricably intertwined with the seniority rule any delinking \vould render the seniority rule wholly unreasonable. After recduitment, members of the service, though drawn from two different sources-direct recruits and promotees-constitute a single integrated cadre. They discharge identical functions, bear similar responsibilities and, acquire an equal amount of experience in the respective assignments.
If quota rule were to be applied at the stage of initial recruitment and wholly ignored at the time of confirmation the rule would suffer from the vice of unreasonableness and would offend Art. 16, because, in that event, while direct recruits would get confirmation automatically, the promotees would hang out for years as has happened ,in the case of respondents 1 and 2 and if they are not confirmed they would never get seniority and their chances of being considered for promotion to the higher post would be wholly jeopardised. [595 A-B. C, D-E] • S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 703 @ 717 and 718; S. B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] 3 SCR 775 @ 797; followed. P. s. SANDHU v. RAM RAKllA (Desai, /. ) 587 6. \Vhere recruitment is from two sources and the seniority in the cadre i8 determined according to the date of confirmation to accord utmost fair treatment a rotational system bas to be followed while giving confirmation.
The quota rule would apply to vacancies and recruitment has to be made keeping in view the vacancies available to the two sources according to the quota. If the quota rule is strictly adhered to there will be no difficulty ln giving confirmation keeping in view the quota rule even at the time of confirmation. A roster is introduced while giving confirmation ascertaining every time which post has fallen vacant and the recruit from that source has to be confirmed in the post available to the source. This system would breakdown the moment recruitment from either source in excess of the quota is made. In fact a strict adherance to the quota rule at the time of recruitment would introduce no difficulty in applying the rule at the time of confirmation because vacancies would be available for confirmation to persons belonging to different sources of recruitment.
The difficulty would arise when recruitment in excess of the quota is made and it would further Le accentuated when recruits from one source viz. direct recruits get auton1atic confirn1ation on completion of the probationary period, while the promotees hang out for years together before being confirmed. [596 F-H, 597 A-BJ M~rvyn Couthzdo and Ors. v. Collector of Custonis, Bombay and Ors. , [1966] 2 SCR 600; A .. K. Subraman and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors. , [1975] 2 SCR 979; explained and distinguished . • CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2902-2903 of 1977. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 3-11-1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6781/74. Y. S. Chitale, M. N. Phadke and P. C. Bhartari (In CA 2903 /77) for the Appellants . .. t G. L. Sanghvi, S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for RR 1-2. ( R. S. Sodhi for the State of Punjab. ( The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J.
-These two appeals by special leave arise from • common judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 560 and 564 of 1974 and Civil Writ No. 6781/74. The controversy raised in these appeals turns upon the construction of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 ('Service Rules' for short). A few relevant facts as alleged by respondents 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No. 2903/78 who moved Civil Writ No. 825 of 1972 in the High Court would highlight the problem posed in these appeals. Respondents 1 and 2, Gurdip Singh and Dalip Singh, filed a writ petition nnder Article 226 of the Constitution against lhe State of Punjab, Inspector General of Police, Punjab, and six others including the present appellants, praying for a direction to confirm them in Punjab Police Service. · Respondents 1 and 2 alleged that they were promotees to !
he cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police of Februai~y, 1961 and January, 1961 respectively having been brought on 'G' List by an order dated 23rd February 1961 of the State of Punjab and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, respondents 3 and 4 herein. Appellants and respondents 5 to 8 were recruited to tile same cadre by direct appointment commencing from May, 1961 to May, 1965.
The grievance of respondents 1 and 2 in the petition filed by them was that recruitment to Punjab Police Service is made from two sources, namely, 80% by promotion and 20% by direct appointment but this quota rule is not adhered to at the time of confirmation in the 'service and, therefore, even though they were members of the service since a period earlier to appellants and respondents 5 to 8, they were not confirmed though the latter were confirmed and as seniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police is reckoned under rule 10 according to date of confirmation, the failure to confirm them in the post available to them, in breach of the relevant rules, has denied to • them equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution to be considered for nomination to Indian Police Service which is done according to seniority-cum-merit.
The State of Punjab and Inspector General of Police, Punjab, on the one hand and the direct recruits on the other contested the writ petition, inter alia, contending that the quota applies at the stag
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.