C.W.P. No.18156 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18156 of 1995 Date of Decision: 12.3.2008 ASI Hukam Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner's prayer, briefly put, is to issue a direction to the respondents, to fix his seniority from the date, his juniors were promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 2.6.1981. He completed the two years period of probation, on the post of a Head Constable on 2.6.1983. The respondents, however, by wrongly interpreting Rules 13.8 and 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 confirmed the petitioner on 31.8.1986 on the plea that the petitioner had to continue on probation, till a post became available. The petitioner was, therefore, promoted to the post of A.S.I. on 21.8.1994. It is submitted that as the petitioner completed two years probation on 2.6.1983 and nothing adverse was reported against him, but as his juniors were promoted and confirmed before him, the respondents should be directed to confirm the petitioner on the post of Head Constable C.W.P. No.18156 of 1995 2 on the date his juniors were confirmed. Counsel for the State of Haryana, however, asserts that as no person junior to the petitioner has been promoted, therefore, no relief can be granted. The petitioner was confirmed on 1.8.1986 when a vacancy arose and consequently the petitioner's prayer for deemed confirmation w.e.f. 2.6.1983, should not be accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and am of the considered opinion that the controversy herein is squarely covered by a judgement of this Court reported as Tara Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others, 2004(1) RSJ 530, wherein, after placing reliance upon the judgements of this Court reported as Hardev Singh V. State of Haryana, 1995(2) RSJ 282 and Jagat Singh V. State of Haryana, 1995(2) RSJ 229 and upon a Full Bench judgement of this Court reported as Sardul Singh V. State of Punjab, 1970 SLR 505, it was held that a Head Constable, is deemed to be confirmed in service on the expiry of two years period of probation commencing from the date of his promotion. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 2.6.1981. Rule 13.18 provides a two years period of probation. No adverse circumstance existed as necessitated extension of the period of probation and none have been asserted. The petitioner was, however, confirmed as a Head Constable only on 31.8.1986. I find no reason to differ from the views recorded in the aforementioned judgements, which cover the present controversy in its entirety. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the Director General of Police, Haryana, to examine the petitioner's claim afresh, in the light of the observations made herein C.W.P. No.18156 of 1995 3 above and the judgements detailed herein before, within a period of one month from today and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to any benefit,the same shall be granted to him within a period of one month from the date of decision of his claim. 12.3.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE