- (1.) All the above three matters would pertain to identical fact and question of law, hence, are disposed of by this common judgment and order. FACTS
(2.) For the purpose of appreciation of facts we would refer to the relevant dates pertaining to Tapas Samanta (W.P.S.T. No.27 of 2010). The petitioners were engaged as Constable in Kolkata Police. They were discharged from service after having served probationary period. They were however, not formally confirmed. If we look to the facts relating to Tapas, we would find, on completion of his training he joined 5 th Battalion of Armed Force of Kolkata Police on January 1, 1994. His period of probation ended on December 31, 1995. He continued to serve without any formal order of extension of the probationary period. On April 10, 1997 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter extended his tenure as a probationer for six months with retrospective effect from February 1, 1997. The Deputy Commissioner issued further extension of six months on January 13, 1998 that too, retrospectively from August 1, 1997. The probationary period thus expired by efflux of time on Junuary 31, 1998. The authority discharged him from service with effect from August 24, 1998. Pertinent to note, the authority did not extend the probationary period subsequent to January 31, 1998, the authority did not confirm the petitioner as well.
(3.) The petitioner challenged the order of discharge by filing O.A. No.8275 of 1998. The Tribunal dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated June 23, 2009. By the said judgment, the Tribunal also disposed of identical applications filed by Amal Chandra Gayan and Uttam Kumar Barman being petitioners before us in W.P.S.T. 28 of 2010 and W.P.S.T. 29 of 2010 respectively.;