- (1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 2027 of 1967 (Amar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others), 25 of 1968 (Banwari Lal v. State of Haryana and Others), 919 of 1968 (Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana and Others), 1464 of 1967 (Sant Singh v. State of Haryana and Others), 1693 of 1967 (Ram Kishore Bhardwaj v. State of Haryana and Others), and 1773 of 1967 (Chaman Lal Setia v. State of Haryana and Others), as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions. Civil Writs No. 202 of 1967, 919 of 1968, 1693 of 1967 and 1773 of 1967 are against the same order and are dealt with in the first instance. These petitioners were appointed as temporary Block Development Officers by the State of Punjab on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. They were already in the service of the State in various Departments where their liens were kept. On appointment they were placed on two years' probation on the condition that the post continued. The period of probation could be extended as and when considered necessary. No maximum period of probation, however, was prescribed. The petitioners were liable to be reverted even without notice if their work and conduct during the period of probation were not found to be satisfactory. It was further provided in the appointment letter that "the post is temporary but likely to continue. His confirmation on the post of Block Development Officer will be subject to condition that the post is made permanent and to his passing the departmental examination. After the expiry of the period of probation and before his confirmation as Block Development Officer, Chaudhry Amar Singh is liable to reversion from the post of Block Development Officer without assigning any reason on giving one month's notice." I have taken this condition from the appointment letter which was issued to Chaudhry Amar Singh petitioner. The appointment letters of other petitioners also contain a similar condition. On April 22, 1964, the following communication was issued, with regard to Chaudhry Amar Singh, by the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Development and Panchayat Department, to the Commissioner, Agricultural Production and Rural Development, Punjab :- "The Governor of Punjab is pleased to certify that Amar Singh, Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Baraguha, District Hissar, has completed his period of probation with effect from the 27th January, 1964. 2. This certificate is subject to the condition that Shri Amar Singh will not claim, on this account, his confirmation as Block Development and Panchayat Officer which will of course come to him only in accordance with his position in the Joint Seniority List and will be dependent upon the availability of permanent posts of the Block Development and Panchayat Officers and other factors. 3. The certificate is further subject to the condition that it will not debar the State Government from taking such action as is considered necessary against the said Amar Singh in case his previous or future conduct as a Government servant is found to be actionable." All the four petitioners were reverted to their parent department by the order of the Governor of Haryana dated July 4, 1967, which was communicated to them on July 10, 1967, on the ground that their services were no longer required. The petitioners have challenged their reversions to their parent departments in these petitions to which written statements have been filed.
(2.) It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Block Development and Panchayat Officers junior to the petitioners were retained in service while the petitioners were reverted. This fact is admitted in the written statements, but it is pleaded that the orders were valid and reliance is placed on the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prem Parkash Midha, 1969 SLR 655which is reproduced below :- "The District Court also held that when the service of the respondent was terminated and officers junior to him were retained in service, the respondent was denied equal opportunity to hold public service under Article 16 of the Constitution. But there is nothing in Article 16 of the Constitution which supports the view expressed by the learned District Judge. By Article 16 all citizens are entitled to equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. By merely terminating the employment of the respondent, the respondent was not denied of equal opportunity to hold public service. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, it is not one of the fundamental rights that a person who is an employee of the State shall be entitled to continue in service and that his employment shall not be terminated so long as persons junior to him remain in service." In view of these observations, there is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
(3.) No other point has been argued in these petitions.;