Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on probation for a period of one year, as Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on July 17, 1967, by the Governor of Punjab, vide order of even date (copy Annexure 'B') -Subsequently a revised order (Copy Annexure 'C') was issued on March 7, 1968, with the concurrence of the Finance Department, which contained similar terms and conditions of service. In pursuance of the letter of appointment dated July 17, 1967, the petitioner took charge on July 18, 1967. On January 4, 1969, the President of India was pleased to order his confirmation vide order Annexure 'D'. Thereafter on March 16, 1971, an order (copy Annexure 'E') was passed deconfirming the petitioner against the post of Assistant Advocate General on the ground that the order of confirmation had been passed due to a bono fide mistake. The petitioner filed a representation (copy Annexure 'F') on April 1, 1971, which was rejected vide order dated June 5, 1972 (copy Annexure 'G'). The order of deconfirmation has been challenged by him through this writ petition.
(2.) THE first contention of Mr. Agnihotri is that the petitioner was appointed against permanent post on probation for a period of one year. Thereafter he was confirmed on January 4, 1969 According to the counsel, there was no mistake in the confirmation of the petitioner as he had been appointed on probation against a permanent post. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances he could not be deconfirmed by the Government. I have given a deep thought to the argument of the learned counsel and find force in it. En order to determine this question, it will be appropriate to refer to various documents which have been placed on record. The petitioner received a letter dated July, 11 1967 (Annexure 'A') from the Joint Legal Remembrancer and Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, requesting him that if he was interested in the appointment as Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, in the scale of Rs. 1300 -50 -1600, he might make it convenient to present himself before the Selection Committee on July 13, 1967. Along with the letter, a statement of terms and conditions of appointment to the post was annexed. In condition (a), it was specifically mentioned that "he will remain on probation for one year. He was appointed on July 17, 1967, vide order Annexure 'B' wherein alto the same condition regarding probation finds place. It appears that while issuing letter Annexure 'B', the Government had not obtained concurrence of the Finance Department. It, therefore after obtaining the concurrence issued a substituted letter dated March 7, 1068 (Annexure 'C') incorporating the same conditions which were contained in Annexure 'B'. The only addition in the letter was that it was being issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department conveyed vide their U.O. advice No. 88 4FG 68 dated 27/28th February, 1968. From the aforesaid letters it is clear that the petitioner was appointed in the first instance on probation for one year. If there had been any mistake in appointing him on probation, it would have been rectified at last in the letter (Annexure 'C'). He continued on probation for about one year and four months and was confirmed on January 4, 1969 on being found to have successfully completed the period of probation, vide order annexure 'D'. Even no mistake in the appointment order was found at that stage. He continued in the same position for a period of more than two years, when he was deconfirmed vide order Annexure 'E', on the ground that he had been confirmed under a bona fide mistake It may, however, be mentioned that in the order it has not been pointed out what was the mistake and how it crept in when the petitioner was confirmed. It will also be relevant to point out that the petitioner has since then been promoted as Deputy Advocate -General.
(3.) IN reply to the writ petition, a similar plea has been taken and it is further stated that the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis. It is also mentioned that the letter showing his appointment as such was Annexure 'R. 1'. It is, however, strange that no letter was annexed with the return. Mr. Sayal, learned counsel for the respondents, could not show from the record that letter Annexure 'R.1' was annexed with the return. On the other hand, he fairly admitted that even no such letter was found by him with the copy of the return retained in the office of the Advocate General, Punjab. It may also be pointed out that the number and date of the letter has not been given in the return. From the aforesaid circumstances, the plea that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, is not established.;