- (1.)The three petitioners are Head Constables of Police. They have a two-fold grievance. Firstly they are aggrieved by the order by which their date of confirmation was changed from January 6, 1989 to July 1, 1990. Secondly, they claim that as a result of this change in the date of confirmation, their seniority was adversely affected and persons junior to them were deputed for the Intermediate School Course at the Police Training College, Phillaur. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.)The petitioners passed the Lower School Course in the year 1982-83. It is averred that their names were brought on List 'C' in April 1983. They were promoted as Head Constables on August 1, 1984. Vide order dated August 22, 1989 (Annexure P-4), the petitioners were confirmed as Head Constables with effect from January 6, 1989. Thereafter vide orders dated October 4, 1989 (P.1), the respondents unilaterally changed the date of confirmation from January 6, 1989 to July 1, 1989. On November 7, 1992, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jullundur passed an order inter alia observing that the Head Constables "who were placed on the year's probation w.e.f. 1.7.89 vide this office order No. 86400-04, dated 18.9.92 are hereby confirmed w.e.f. 1.7.1990 on completion of probation period." The petitioners challenge the alteration of the dates of confirmation primarily on the ground that it was done without any notice or the grant of any opportunity. It is further claimed that on account of this order, the petitions seniority was affected and persons who were otherwise junior to them were deputed for the Intermediate School Course. They have referred to the names of M/s. Sagli Ram, Balbir Singh, Buta Ram and Sukhwinder Singh in this behalf.
(3.)In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that according to the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police, it has been decided that "to bring about uniformity hence forth the cases of confirmation should invariably be taken up and decided twice in a year i.e. in the months of January and July each year and should be dealt with strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions issued from time to time." This decision is stated to have been taken on the ground that an official does not get undue advantage by his confirmation in a district over the persons belonging to another district, who may otherwise be senior to him. On this basis, it is averred that the date of confirmation of the petitioner was initially changed from January 6, 1989 to July 1, 1989. It has been further pointed out that at the time of the consideration of the cases of the petitioners along with those of various other persons for confirmation, the recommendation made by the Committee was that they be placed on probation for one year. This recommendation was accepted by respondent No. 3. However, instead of issuing orders for their being placed on probation, the petitioners were actually confirmed vide orders dated August 22, 1989 (Annexure P-4). Since the recommendation of the Committee which had been accepted by the competent authority was for placing them on probation, the mistake was rectified and the petitioners were placed on probation w.e.f. July 1, 1989. On successful completion of the period of probation, they were deemed to have been confirmed w.e.f. July 1, 1990. It has further been stated that "no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. Head Constables Balbir singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Sagli Ram were deputed for intermediate school course before the petitioners because all of them belong to Scheduled Castes and they were sent for the said course under the reserved quota for scheduled castes as per Govt. instructions. Head Constable Boota Ram has expressed the unwillingness to undergo the said course. Thus no head Constable junior to the petitioners has been illegally deputed for the Intermediate School Course." On these premises, it is claimed that the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.