HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K KANNAN
1.The order of reversion of the petitioner who is a Head Constable, to the post of Constable on the ground that his service record was not good, is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that there was inherent error in characterising the petitioner as ad-hoc promotee, who could not have been tossed about and pushed down to the grade by specious reference to some adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Reports. 2.Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable on the basis of seniority on 16-04-1993 against specific vacancies but the order of appointment (Annexure P-1) referred to his promotion as on ad-hoc basis. That order also stated that the petitioner along with another person by name Ajit Singh was adjusted in the place of Head Constables Ram kishan and Ram Chander respectively who had been promoted to the rank of ASI. Order of reversion came to be passed on 01-03-2005 after a show-cause notice on 03-12-2004 on the ground that the confirmation case of officiating Head Constable had been taken up but since his ACR from 05-11-2000 to 31- 03-2001 had been commented upon adversely and his service record being unsatisfactory during the period of probation he was liable to be reverted by virtue of the fact that under Punjab Police Rules 13.18, an officiating official was required either to be confirmed in the rank when a permanent post was available to him or to be reverted to his substantive rank. A permanent post was available with effect from 31-08-2003 but he could not be confirmed due to the unsatisfactory record during the period of probation.
3.The petitioner challenges all expressions found in the impugned order CWP 12734 of 2007 --2-- dated 01-03-2005. According to him, there is no ad-hoc appointment under the Punjab Police Rules and the appellation used even under the first order of promotion on 16-04- 1993 that he was being posted as Head Constable on ad-hoc basis was clearly wrong. Reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishal Singh versus State of Haryana reported in 1994(2) SCT 556 has been made which laid down that there was no rule for promotion on ad-hoc basis and in the absence of any such rules no ad- hoc promotion could be made. A promotion that is made under Rule 13.8(ii) will always have to be taken as a regular post though specifically said to be on ad-hoc or temporary basis. The petitioner therefore, contended that since he had been promoted even on 16-04-1993 against a vacant post that fell vacant on account of the promotion of one of the persons to still higher post as ASI , his promotion must be understood only as on permanent basis. Even if it were to be taken that it was merely an ad-hoc engagement and that he was on probation, the period of probation itself could not be for an indefinite period to be treated as such till the order of 2005 to take up the issue for making him permanent against a post that fell vacant in 1993. The Punjab Police Rules stipulates an outer limit of two years as a period of probation and if no order was passed revoking the probation, it should be taken that as confirmation to the post that the particular person held. The petitioner further contended that on 16-04-1995 i.e. on the completion of two years, he was bound to be taken as confirmed on the post of Head Constable and there was no scope for undertaking a fresh appraisal in the year 2005 to confirm the probation or not. Such an exercise undertaken by the IGP, according to the petitioner was clearly erroneous.
4.We are in full agreement with the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner as regards the twin submissions that the initial appointment although called as ad-hoc engagement in the absence of statutory rules for such ad-hoc promotion , his appointment was bound to be considered only as a regular promotion. The continuity on the post as a Head Constable could not be taken as on probation for as late as 2005 to enable the respondents to inflict the order of reversion on the specious plea that his conduct in the year 2000 was not satisfactory .If there had been any adverse entries in his ACR that would stand in the way of his promotion, it could be only in respect of any fresh consideration when a particular entry in the ACR during the said period would be relevant. Therefore, we hold that the petitioner held the post as Head Constable not on ad-hoc basis and neither the treatment of the petitioner as on probation nor the consideration for reversion could be upheld as tenable. The impugned CWP 12734 of 2007 --3-- order of the respondent is legally unsustainable and we uphold the claim of the petitioner and quash the impugned order dated 19-02-2005. 5.The writ petition under the circumstnaces is allowed in the above terms.
