V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THIS will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 11586,11560 and 5504 of 1993.
(2.) IN all these cases, petitioners were recruited as Constables in the Haryana Police. Keeping in view the provisions of Rule 13. 8 (2), the petitioners were ordered to be promoted as Head Constables on ad-hoc basis. Subsequently, petitioners were ordered to be reverted. The order of reversion was challenged by the petitioners by way of writ petitions in this Court. The order of reversion was set aside. These writ petitions have now been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for confirmation under Rule 13. 18 of the Punjab Police Rules, and further, to declare that they are entitled to be deputed to Intermediate School Course at Police Training College, Madhuban, from the date their immediate juniors were so deputed. Respondents, in their written statement, have taken the stand that petitioners were promoted as Head Constables under rule 13. 8 (2), but the said promotion was on ad-hoc basis and in the orders promoting them as such, it was made clear that they have no right to claim seniority.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petitions deserve to succeed. Rule 13. 8 (2) has recently been interpreted by the Supreme Court in judgment reported as Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. , J. T. 1994 (2) S. C. 157. The Supreme Court has held that promotion of constables to the post of Head Constables under Rule 13. 8 (2) is on regular basis, though in the promotion order it may have been specifically mentioned to be on temporary or ad-hoc basis. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court is as under : "under rule 13. 1 there shall be selection tempered by seniority. Efficiency and honesty should be the main factors. Passing of training course is necessary. When the candidate did not pass such, test, discretion has been given in rule 13. 8 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to relax the mandatory requirement of passing of the training course, that too within the quota and promote a candidate as Head Constable. The rule expressly gives power to the Deputy Inspector General of Police in exceptional cases to promote the persons. The appellant was considered in the sports quota and was found to be suitable in accordance with Rule 13. 8 (2 ). It would be obvious that the promotion could be on regular basis but not on ad-hoc basis. No rule or instructions having statutory force was brought to our notice to support the contention of the State. In fact in the counter affidavit, it was specifically admitted that there is no rule for appointing on adhoc basis. It is true that due to administrative exigencies adhoc or temporary promotion is permissible. But it must be traceable to statutory source of power or instructions having force of law. No such rule has been brought to our notice. The only conclusion would be that the promotion of the applicant under rule 13. 8 (2) on regular basis, though specifically said to be on temporary or adhoc basis. " There is also a merit in the contention of counsel that petitioners would be deemed to have been confirmed on completion of probation period of two years. The relevant rule in the case of the petitioners is rule 13. 18, which is reproduced hereunder: "13. 18. All Police Officers promoted in rank shall be on probation for two years; provided that the appointing authority may, by a special order in each case, permit periods of officiating service to count towards the period of probation. On the conclusion of the probationary period a report shall be rendered to the authority empowered to confirm the promotion who shall either confirm the officer or revert him. In no case shall the period of probation be extended beyond two years and the confirming authority must arrive at a definite decision within a reasonable time soon after the expiry of that period whether the officer should be confirmed or reverted. While on probation officers may be revered without departmental proceedings. Such reversion shall not be considered reduction for the purpose of rule 16. 4". Concededly, all the petitioners have completed much more than two years' probation period and there is nothing on record to show that their conduct during the probation period was not satisfactory. In this view of the matter, petitioners would be deemed to have been confirmed on the post in question, on completion of two years' probation period. ;