S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. - (1.) I have the privilege of persuing the exhaustive judgment recorded by my learned brother Tewatia, J. With great deference, I would perhaps have not carried my doubts to the length of a dissent but for the fact that it appears to me that the view taken by him would render a substantial part of Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 otiose.
(2.) THE learned Judges of the Division Bench, in their brief order of reference to the Full Bench had indicated, the question which fell for consideration. On the existing pleadings, however, the precise formulation may be as under: Whether a Head Constable, whose name is borne on list 'D', as prescribed by Rule 13.9 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 when merely officiating against a permanent post of an Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police is deemed to be on probation from the date of such officiation, or an express order under Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 has to be passed for putting such an official on probation and till then he continues merely to officiate on that post? It would be manifest that the key to the aforesaid question lies primarily in the true construction to be placed on Rule 13.4(2) and Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').
(3.) THE facts are in a narrow compass. The Petitioner holds the rank of a substantive Head Constable in the police force and his name is borne on list 'D' maintained under Rule 13.9 of the Rules. On his express averments in para 3 of the writ petition, he was promoted as an officiating Assistant Sub -Inspector on June 14, 1972 in his parent district of Ludhiana. It is the common case that he continued to officiate as such till the preferring of the present petition. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is directed against annexure P/2, which categorises the officials in three classes. Those in category No. 1 have been straightaway confirmed in the rank of Assistant Sub -Inspector with effect from July 15, 1979 after counting their officiating service towards probation under Rule 13.18 of the Rules. Those in category No. 2 have been placed on six months' probation with effect from September 15, 1979 in the rank, of Assistant Sub -Inspector after taking into consideration a period of 1J/2J years' officiating service towards probation under Rule 13.18 of the Rules. The Petitioner, however, falls in the third category and along with 38 others has been placed on two years probation with effect from September 15, 1979 in the rank of Assistant Sub -Inspector after counting his one year's officiating service towards such probation. The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that some of his colleagues who fall in categories Nos. 1 and 2 are junior to him in rank and he has, therefore, been discriminated against by the impugned order. In fact he rests his claim on the ground that having continuously officiated for seven years as an Assistant Sub -Inspector is nothing else but having served on probation against the said post and he is, therefore, entitled either to automatic confirmation or in any case to a presumption that he stands so confirmed on the expiry of the maximum period of three years prescribed by the Rules. On these premises, he also claims preference for being deputed to the Upper School Course in order of his seniority.;