THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1092 of 1985 Date of decision: 26.09.2008 Parmatma Singh and others .................Petitioners Versus State of Punjab etc. .............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, A.A.G., Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI J.(ORAL) ********* Petitioners were appointed Wild Life Guards and later promoted as Wild Life Inspectors between 1965 to 1975. They were required to pass the departmental examination in accounts and language as presccribed under Punjab Wild Life Preservation Department State Class III Rules, 1959. Members of the service are put on probation on their substantive appointment on a vacancy in the cadre of service for a period of two years in the case of direct recruitment and one year in the case of promotion etc. Petitioners being promotees were required to be placed on probation for a period of one year. The services of the appointees/promotees could be dispensed with on their failure to pass the departmental examination within the prescribed period in terms of Sub Rule 3 of Rule 12. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioners did not pass the departmental examination within three years, however, the petitioners Nos.2 and 4 passed the departmental examination in October 1984 whereas petitioners Nos.3, 5 and 6 passed the examination in February 1985. Nothing is said about the passing of examination by petitioner No.1, however, it is stated that petitioner No.1 applied for grant of exemption from passing the C.W.P. No.1092 of 1985 -2- examination. No material has been placed on record to indicate whether any exemption was granted by the State at any given time or not. Petitioners were ordered to be reverted vide order dated 26.02.1985 (Annexure D-1) on their failure to pass the departmental examination within the period of probation including the extended probation. Besides the statutory rules which inter alia provide for passing of the examination, the Government has also issued administrative instructions notified vide letter dated 28.09.1982. Under these instructions, it is specified that the failure to pass the departmental examination will entail termination of service, however, reversion/termination is required to be made before the expiry of period of three years from the date of appointment. The relevant instructions are contained in sub para (iii) of the aforesaid instructions which reads as under:- "(iii) The reversion/termination orders shall issue before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of appointment." It is not in dispute that no action was initiated against the petitioners within the prescribed period of three years or probation as mandated under Rule 12(3) or under the instructions referred to hereinabove and the petitioners continued to remain in service till the impugned reversion/termination order came to be passed on 26.02.1985. As a matter of fact, the reversion order came to be passed after more than 10 years of their promotion/appointment as Inspectors. It is also admitted position that before the passing of reversion/termination order, the petitioners had successfully passed the departmental examinations. Aggrieved of the impugned order of reversion, the petitioners approached this Court and the reversion order was stayed vide interlocutory order dated 05.03.1985 and as a consequence of the aforesaid interlocutory C.W.P. No.1092 of 1985 -3- order, the petitioners continued to be in service till they have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners are already getting their retiral benefits as Inspectors. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the petitioners were entitled to six chances to pass the departmental examination. There is nothing on record to show that six examinations were held within three years of the period of appointment and whether the petitioners were able to avail all the chances or not. The fact remains that the petitioners were allowed to continue in service even after the expiry of period of probation without passing the departmental examination and their reversion order came to be passed after more than 10 years of service. At this belated stage particularly when the petitioners have already retired from service, it is not appropriate to permit the respondents to implement the reversion order. This petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 26.02.1985 is hereby quashed and it is directed that the petitioners except petitioner No.1 shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits etc. for the post of Inspector which they were getting at the time of their retirement. In so far as the case of petitioner No.1 is concerned, the respondent-State shall consider the representation of petitioner No.1 (Annexure P-4) for grant of exemption from passing the departmental examination since he has retired long back in the year 1986 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four months from today. September 26, 2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) Pankaj* JUDGE