The appellant Muhammad Saleem Khan was recruited as Inspector (Legal) vide order, dated 27-3- 1990 issued by the 13.1.-G./Commandant Police College, Sihala. He passed the prescribed departmental examination, (i.e. Inspector Legal Class Course) during the term ending September/October, 1990 and he completed three years maximum period probation ion 6-4-1993.
The appellant sought his confirmation in the rank of Inspector Legal vide his petition dated 17-4- 1993 which was endorsed by theD.I.-G./Commandant, Police College, Sihala on 15-6-1993. Finding no response to it, the appellant filed the instant appeal, after the expiry of 90 days under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the provisions of Rule 19.26(3) of the Police Rules to contend that the appellant was entitled to be confirmed in his appointment after he had passed the training course, had rendered six months practical training and had further rendered- 1-1/2 years' service as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector. He states that the period of probation would of course be deemed to have been extended from 8-4-1992 to 6-4-1993 as no order of confirmation was passed on 7-4-1992.
3. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant was appointed against the existing vacancy and the fact that he was appointed on a temporary basis did not imply that he was necessarily appointed against a temporary vacancy.
4. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, learned District Attorney stated that the appellant was appointed on purely temporary basis. He, therefore, referred to the provisions of section 6(4) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 to assert that there could be no confirmation against any temporary post. He fortified his view by a reference to section 6(6) of the Act, ibid, to contend that the appellant could only be confirmed from the date of occurrence of a permanent vacancy in his service. The aforesaid subsection (6) of section 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act is reproduced below:-- Section 6(6).---Confirmation of a civil servant in a service or against a post shall take effect from the date of the occurrence of a permanent vacancy in such service or against such post or from the date of continuous officiation, in such service or against such post, whichever is later."
5. I have perused the written objections filed by the Commandant, Police College, Sihala, who had recruited the appellant in service as Appointing Authority. The said respondent has conceded, in his written objections that "the appellant was eligible to be confirmed on the expiry of his probationary period i.e. Three years (7-4-1993) but not from the date of appointment (7-4-1990)".
The I.-G. Police (i.e. Respondent No. 1) has; however, objected to -the confirmation of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was appointed as temporary Inspector Legal in March, 1990 when 107 temporary posts of Inspectors/Legal were sanctioned by Government followed by the "De- separation of Prosecution Branch" resulting in the transfer of 323 A.D.As. From the Law Department and their appointment as Inspector (Legal) vice Police Department's Notification, dated 31-5-1991 and the placement of as many as 180 Inspectors Legal (erstwhile A.D.As.) as senior to the appellant who were yet to be confirmed. Learned D.A., therefore, maintains that the appellant could not be confirmed in his appointment as Inspector (Legal). It has been stated in the said written objections that the inter se seniority of the Legal Inspectors -would be determined in accordance with the principles of policy laid down by the I.-G. Police, Punjab in his letter, dated 25-5-1994 in the following order:--
(i) Confirmed Inspectors/Legal.
(ii) From date of admission to list ' F' irrespective of the fact that the officer is Ex-ADA or Inspector/Legal who remained in Police Department throughout.
(i.e) From the date of regular continuous officiation in the rank, either the officer remained posted to Police Department or opted for Law Department in 1985 and transferred back in 1992.
(iv) The ex-A.D.As. Who were appointed in Law Department and opted for transfer to Police Department on 31-5-1992, will be considered fresh appointees from the date when they joined the Police Department.
6. The appellant had already become due for confirmation after he had completed three years' period of probation to the satisfaction of the department. It has, however, to be seen whether the appellant was recruited against a permanent vacancy on 7-4-1990 to determine whether he had qualified for confirmation after completing three years' period of probation. Learned District Attorney agrees that subsequent determination of seniority in the manner as spelled out at para. 5 above could not have any bearing on the confirmation of the appellant if it hid become legally due to him-prior to the fixation of such seniority. Learned District Attorney, however, relies on the judgment of the learned Supreme Court reported vide 1987 SCM R 156 to contend that the appellant would not become permanent employee automatically merely because he had successfully completed his probationary period.
7. I have heard the learned counsel representing the appellant as also the learned District Attorney who forcefully defended the respondents notwithstanding the evasive attitude on the part of the respondents who failed to confirm as to when the posts against one of which the appellant was appointed was initially created nor has it been confirmed whether it was created as a temporary post and if so, was it converted to permanent post subsequently and if so from which date/financial year such a transformation in the nature of the post had taken place. The contention of the appellant, however, is that he was recruited "against the existing vacancies" and that the term "on purely temporary basis" used in their offer of appointment was normally incorporated in the offer of appointments made by Government Departments although it had ceased to be of any legal significance. According to the counsel for the appellant the vacancies would be treated as permanent ones as the phrase "against the existing vacancies" could not be stretched to interpret that the vacancies existed on temporary basis. .
8. The version of the respondent No. 1 (i.e. I.-G. Police, Punjab) is that the appellant was recruited as Inspector Legal with effect from 27-3-1990 against temporary post. He passed the prescribed examination of Inspector Legal in the Police Department vide Notification, dated 31-5-1992. These officers also included those who originally belonged to the Police Department and had gone to Law Department as A.D.As. Oil their option in 1985. According to the said respondent, the seniority matter amongst Inspectors Legal who remained in the Police Department and those who joined the Law Department and came back to the Police Department on 31-5-1992 including those who had been recruited as A.D.As. To the Law Department cropped up; that it was determined in accordance with the Police Rules 13.15(4) and 12:2(3) according to which the petitioner was correctly placed at Serial No. 281 of the seniority list. The said respondent of firme4j that although no formal orders regarding disposal of the representation of the petitioner for confirmation were passed, his representation was duly considered before determining the inter se seniority list circulated on 25-5-1994, as many as 180 Legal Inspectors were shown senior to him who were still waiting for their entry to Promotion List 'F'.
9. I have carefully glanced through the provisions of Rule 12.2(3) of the Punjab Police Rules. The provisions of the above rule deal with the question of the determination of inter se seniority of the Police Officers promoted from amongst the lower ranks vis-a-vis those appointed by direct recruitment. Rule 12.2(3) does not, in any case, lay down the procedure or the conditions precedent to confirmation of a directly recruited Inspector Legal or other police officials for that matter. As regards Rule 13.15 referred to by the respondents, the position is that it deals with the induction of the Sub-Inspectors and Seargents of Police to List 'F' (Le the select list for the purpose of their promotion as Inspectors of Police). According to sub-rule (4) of Rule 13.15, the seniority of the promoted Sub-Inspectors as Inspectors would be counted from the date of their enlistment in List '
F. A careful perusal of Rule 12.2(3) and Rule 13.15(4) of the Police Rules, referred to above, indicates that these lay down the manner in which the seniority of promoted Police Inspectors vis-a-vis directly recruited Police Inspectors would be determined. That being so, seniority could not have properly been assigned to the appellant and the Legal Inspectors of his category who were directly recruited by the Police Department unless they were confirmed as Inspectors of Police from a specific date from which they were entitled to such confirmation under the rules. Such confirmation could alone be counted for determining their inter se seniority with the Legal inspectors who had either continued in the Police Department since their induction in service or had gone to the Law Department as A.D.As. On their option and had come back from that department to the Police Department in the year 1992.
10. The factual position is that in the present appeal, we are concerned with the question of confirmation of the appellant and the other Legal Inspectors who were recruited alongwith him on 27-3-199017-4-1990. The formula devised by the I.-G. Police as reproduced at para. 4 above for determining the inter se seniority of the Legal Inspectors and the A.D.As. Is the subject of an appeal already pending before the Division Bench of this Tribunal and its legal validity shall be determined, in due course, independent of the present appeal which only deals with the confirmation of the appellant as Legal Inspector. The date of confirmation would, of course, have its bearing for determining the inter se seniority of the appellant vis-a--vis other Legal Inspectors and the ADAs.
11. Rule 19.26 of the Police Rules actually deals with the training of the directly recruited Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors of Police (now upgraded as Legal Inspectors), in the Police Officers Training School for a period of one year, practical training for 6 months and in service probation/training for a period of 1-1/2 years (i.e. 3 years in all). According to Rule 19.26(3), after the expiry of the 3 years' period, specified above, they would be confirmed in their appointment provided they had rendered work to the satisfaction of the Principal of the Police Training School and that of the Superintendent of Police of the district where they 'had served during such period of training and probation.
12. I am of the considered view that the following to facts would determine the date from which the appellant would be entitled to confirmation as Legal Inspector; (1) satisfactory completion of training, passing of departmental examination and rendition of satisfactory service during the period of his probation (3 years in all); (2) the date of confirmation would be the one from which permanent vacancy of Legal Inspector of Police had become available for the appellant.
13. I have carefully gone through the directions issued by the Chief secretary, Government of the Punjab vide his letter dated 16-10-1951 and subsequent instructions issued by the Inspector- General of Police vide his letter dated 6-10-1958 (annexed to the file). According to the requisite instructions, the Provincial Government had decided in consultation with the Central Government that in cases of confirmation, the service rendered by Government servant on probation would unless the relevant rules prescribed otherwise be treated as service rendered in a substantive capacity and accordingly the date of confirmation of a probationer deemed fit for confirmation by the competent Authority "should be the date of his appointment on probation and not any subsequent date".
14. The letter of appointment of the appellant clearly shows that he was appointed against an existing vacancy. An appointment in substantive capacity would obviously be determined by the date from which the post of Legal Inspector against which the appellant was recruited was created on permanent basis.
15. The provisions of section 6(6) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 reproduced above to confirm the above view. According to the provisions of section 6(6) of the Act (ibid), confirmation of a civil servant in a service or against a post shall take effect from the date of the occurrence of a permanent vacancy in such service or against such post or from the date of continuous officiation in such service or against such post whichever is later. The appellant would, therefore, be entitled to confirmation as Legal Inspector from the date of his appointment as such i.e. With effect from 7- 4-1990 or with effect from the date on which the post against which he was recruited was converted to a permanent post by the Finance Department, in case the post was initially created on temporary basis in March, 199() when the recruitment against the post was made by the respondent No. 2 namely D.I.-G. Police/Commandant Police College, Sihala. Such confirmation would, of course, be without prejudice to the decision that may eventually be taken as regards the formula determining the inter se seniority of the appellant and such other Legal Inspectors who were recruited as such and continued to work in the Police Department vis-a-vis those who opted to join the Law Department as A.D.As. In 1985 and sought repatriation to the Police Department from 1-6-1992 as also such A.D.As. Who were recruited in the Law Department and had sought transfer to the Police Department.
16. The instant appeal is accordingly allowed subject to the above stipulations.
17. The parties are left to bear their own costs