http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 307 of 1998

PETITIONER:

Mir Mohammad Khasim

RESPONDENT:

Union of India and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2004

BENCH:

Brijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.

The controversy in this appeal relates to the

question of deemed confirmation on successful completion

of period of probation in the service and an order to that

effect having been passed by the employer, whereafter

nothing further was required to be done, except the formality

of passing an order of confirmation.

The appellant was appointed as ASI in the police

department of the State of Andhra Pradesh and was

promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-3 in

the year 1975. He was further promoted as Deputy

Superintendent of Police Category-2 with effect from

1.3.1982. He was placed on probation. Sometime later his

probation was terminated and he was reverted to his

erstwhile cadre which was challenged by filing a writ petition

in the High Court. The writ petition was allowed as a

consequence thereof, an order was issued on 6.10.1989

declaring that the appellant had satisfactorily completed the

period of probation with effect from 27.1.1987 in relaxation of

Rule 7(e) of Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966 (for

short 'the A.P.P.S.Rules').

In the seniority list of the officers of the state police

service dated 1.6.1989, he was placed at serial no.103. The

names of the private respondents were placed at serial

nos.118 and 125. The eligible candidates, for selection to

the Indian Police Service, from the state police services,

were due for consideration for which a selection was held

on 5.1.1990 and the select list for 1989 was prepared but the

name of the appellant did not appear in the list. The private

respondents shown junior to the appellant in the seniority list

were considered and selected. The appellant was not

considered by the selection committee with a remark that he

was not yet confirmed. This fact was verified by the Central

Administrative Tribunal by perusing the record of the

selection in question. As a matter of fact, there is no denial

that the appellant was not considered for selection to the

cadre of Indian Police Service on the ground that he was not

confirmed. However, according to the appellant, he would

be deemed to be confirmed in view of the order of the State

Government dated 6.10.1989 saying that the appellant had

satisfactorily completed the period of probation in the cadre

of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category 2. The said

order of the State Government is reproduced below :

"Home (Police.E) Department

G.O.Rt.No.3245 Dated 6th October, 1989

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

Read the following:-

1.G.O.Ms.No.39 Home (Police-E) dpt.

Dt.16.1.1982.

2.GO.Ms.No.406 Home (Police-E),

dt.3.3.1983

3.G.O.Rt.No.2923, Home (Police-E),

dt.20.10.1984.

4.G.O.Rt.No.579 Home (Police-E) Dpt.

Dt.22.3.1982.

ORDER:

"Shri Mohd.Khasim, Asst.Commandant

(DSP-Category-3) was appointed by transfer

as Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Category-2 in the G.O.1st read above and

commenced probation with effect from 1-3-

1982. His probation was terminated and he

was reverted as Asst.Commandant, though

equivalent cadre, which he held prior to his

appointment as Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Category-2, in the G.O.2nd read

above. By virtue of High Court orders dated

10.10.1984 in W.P.M.P.No.1836 of 1984 in

W.P.No.1398 of 1984 he was reappointment

as Deputy Superintendent of Police category-

2 by revoking the orders of termination of

probation in G.O.3rd read above and allowed

to continue that Balance of Training. The

duty period from 3-3-1983 to 19-11-1984 was

treated as duty in the cadre on Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2.

Under Rule 6(a) of A.P.Police services

rules, he shall be on probation for a total

period of one year on duty within a

continuous period of two years. Rule 7(e) of

the same rules, prescribes that a probationer

has to pass the tests prescribed in rule & 7(a)

at or before fifth half yearly examination held

after his appointment as Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2. Shri

Mohd.Khasim has passed the Departmental

Test-D(i) in the examination held in

September, 1986 and the result of the test

was received in Government on 27.1.1987.

After careful consideration, under Rule

47 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service

Rules, The Governor of Andhra Pradesh

hereby relaxes Rules 7(e) of A.P.P.S. in

favour of Sri Mohd.Khasim, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2 and

under Rule 26 of A.P.State and Subordinate

Service Rules, Government hereby extend

the probation of Sri Mohd.Khasim as Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2 up to

and inclusive of 27.1.1987 and declares that

he was satisfactorily completed his probation

in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Category-2 on the A.N.O.27.1.1987.

(By order and in the name of the Governor of

Andhra Pradesh)

Sd/-

P.V.Rangaiah Naidu,

Principal Secretary to Government"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

(emphasis supplied)

The case of the appellant is that the rules do not require

anything further to be done after successful completion of

period of probation and before confirmation of the

concerned employee. In such circumstances the

confirmation would be deemed to have been done as after

successful completion of the period of probation as it could

not be treated to be impliedly extended any further.

The case of the respondent, however, is that in

view of provisions contained under rules 6 and 7 particularly

sub-rule (e) of Rule 7 of A.P.P.S. Rules, a further period of

three years had yet to be completed as probationary period

by the appellant with effect from 27.1.1987 in addition to a

period of one year so as to be entitled for confirmation as

Deputy Superintendent of Police Category 2. The period of

three years with effect from 27.1.1987 would have been

completed on 27.1.1990. Therefore, there was no occasion

to consider the appellant for selection to the Indian Police

Service in the year 1989. Rules 6 and 7 of the A.P.P.S.rules

are quoted below:

"6(a) Probation \026 Every person appointed to

a category in the service shall be on

probation, for a total period of two years on

duty within a continuous period of three

years, if recruited direct; and for a total period

of one year of duty within a continuous period

of two years, if recruited by transfer or

promotion. Every Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Category-3 appointed to the post of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2,

shall be on probation for a total period of one

year on duty within a continuous period of

two years.

(b) A probationer in the category of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2 or

Category \026 3 shall be eligible to count, for

purpose of his probation, the duty rendered

by him in any post, the duties and

responsibilities which are declared by a

general or special order of the Government to

be equivalent to those attached to the post of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2

or as the case may be in Category 3.

(c) A probationer in the category of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2 or

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-3

shall not be eligible to draw the first

increment until he passes the prescribed

tests and satisfactorily completes the period

of probation. The postponement of

declaration of probation on account of non-

passing of tests shall not however have the

effect of postponing future increments after

he has passed the prescribed tests.

7. Tests \026 (a) A person appointed to the

service by direct recruitment shall pass at or

before the fifth half-yearly examination held

after his appointment, an examination in \026

xxxx xxx xxx

(b) Deputy Superintendent of Police,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

Category-2 appointed from the post of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-3

shall, if he has not already passed, pass the

tests prescribed in sub-rule (a) above, at or

before the fifth half-yearly examination held

after his appointment as Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2.

(c) Notwithstanding anything in the General

Rules but subject to the exceptions specified

in sub-rule (d) \026

(i) no person appointed by direct

recruitment shall be declared an

approved probationer unless and until

he has passed the examination in all

the subjects at or before the fifth half-

yearly examination held after his

appointment as specified in sub-rule

(a);

(ii) if any such person has satisfactorily

completed the prescribed period of

probation and has been declared an

approved probationer, he shall be

deemed to have become a full

member of the service on and from

the date on which he has

satisfactorily completed the period of

probation;

(iii) if any such person fails to pass the

examination in any of the said

subjects as required by sub-rule (a)

he shall, by order, be discharged from

the service unless he is exempted

from passing the examination in any

such subjects or is given further time

for passing the examination;

(d) if such a person has been exempted from

passing the examination in all or any of the

said subjects or has passed the said

examination within the further period or

periods allowed to him for passing the said

examination, he shall be declared to have

satisfactorily completed his probation, if

otherwise found suitable for such declaration,

and appointed a full member and shall count

his service for increments on and from such

date as may be determined by the State

Government, but such date shall not be

earlier than the date of the fifth half-yearly

examination held after his appointment to the

service.

(e) No person appointed as Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2, from

the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Category-3 shall be declared an approved

probationer in Category-2 unless and until he

has passed the examination in all the

subjects at or before the fifth half-yearly

examination held after his appointment as

specified in sub-rule (b). Such a person

shall, render a further satisfactory service of

three years before he is confirmed as Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Category-2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

besides the period of probation prescribed in

rule 6."

According to the learned counsel for the

respondent the appellant on successful completion of one

year's period of probation and clearing the tests would be

declared as an approved probationer whereafter alone one

has to undergo further period of three years probation before

becoming entitled for confirmation in service. By means of

order dated 6.10.1989 he was declared only as an approved

probationer w.e.f. 27.1.1987, therefore, as per rule 7(e) a

further period of three years would be counted from

27.1.1987 which period would be completed on 27.1.1990,

therefore, there was no occasion to submit that appellant

could be deemed to have been confirmed any time before

27.1.1990. It is further submitted that there is no automatic

confirmation unless a specific order is passed confirming an

employee. To further strengthen the latter submission it is

pointed out that no maximum period of probation has been

provided under the Rules in this case on expiry whereof, it

could be claimed that there would be automatic confirmation

of the appellant nor it has been provided that the period of

probation could not be extended beyond what is provided

under rules 6 and 7. Therefore, even after four years

probationary period the appellant would only be treated to

have been continued on probation, unless specifically an

order of confirmation was passed.

Ms.K.Amareshwari, learned senior counsel

appearing for respondent no.3 further submits that the whole

reading of the order dated 6.10.1989 granting relaxation to

the appellant would show that the relaxation was provided

only in so far it related to duration of period within which

written tests were required to be cleared by a probationer.

Rule 7(a) of the A.P.P.S.Rules provides for clearing the

prescribed tests at or before the 5th half yearly examination

held after his appointment, while clause (b) of rule 7

provides that those who have been promoted from Deputy

Superintendent of Police Category 3 to category 2, in case

they had already not passed the tests prescribed in sub-rule

(a) at or before the 5th half yearly examination held after his

appointment, shall do so accordingly on their appointment to

category 2; the appellant cleared the prescribed tests much

after a period of two and half years, namely, only in the

examination held in September, 1986 the result of which was

declared on 27.1.1987. It is submitted that the relaxation

has been granted to the appellant only in respect of the

period of time during which he was required to clear the

tests. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to

the order dated 6.10.1989 where in the last but one

paragraph of the order it is mentioned that the appellant had

to pass the prescribed tests at or before 5th half yearly

examination held after his appointment but the appellant had

passed the tests in September, 1986. Therefore, the

contention is that the order of relaxation pertains to the

period of time which has been extended in clearing the

paper and not in respect of the period of three years of

probation which has further to be undergone over and above

the period of one year of probation as provided under rule

6(a) of the A.P.P.S.Rules. It is further submitted that the

appellant could be declared as an approved probationer only

after he had successfully completed one year's period of

probation under rule 6(a) and had cleared the written tests at

or before the 5th half yearly examination and in view of latter

part of clause (e) of rule 7 of the A.P.P.S.Rules he has to

complete a further satisfactory service of three years before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

confirmation besides the period of probation prescribed in

rule 6.

On consideration of the submission made by

learned senior counsel for the respondent, we find it difficult

to read the order of relaxation, in the manner sought to be

read by the respondent. It is no doubt true that according to

rule 6 a promotee officer has to complete initially a period of

one year's probation before he could be declared as an

approved probationer. The other requirement is of clearing

the tests as prescribed under rule 7(a). A further period of

three years satisfactory service is to be completed before

being confirmed in service as provided under latter part of

clause (e) of rule 7. But it is not possible to confine the order

of relaxation to the period of clearing the tests and not in

respect of requirement of further period of three years,

besides one year's period under rule 6(a). In the last but

one paragraph of the order dated 6.10.1989 there is a

mention of the fact that the appellant had cleared the tests in

the examination held in September, 1986 result of which was

received by the Government on 27.1.1987. In the next

paragraph thereafter there is a mention of relaxation of rule

7(e) of the A.P.P.S.Rules and rule 26 of the A.P.State and

Subordinate Service Rules. The order further goes on to say

that the period of probation of the appellant was extended

thereby up to and inclusive of 27.1.1987. After mentioning

the above facts the order declares that the appellant has

satisfactorily completed his probation in the cadre of Deputy

Superintendent of Police category 2. As indicated earlier,

there is a specific mention of relaxation of "rule 7(e)" and

"under rule 26" of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules.

Therefore, it cannot be said that relaxation of rule 7(e) is

limited to first part of the said clause and it does not cover

the latter part. As a matter of fact the requirement of

clearing the tests in five half yearly examinations is provided

in rule 7(b) and not in clause (e) of rule 7. What is not

provided in rule 7(b) or elsewhere but only in sub-rule (e) is

contained in the latter part which provides for three years

further satisfactory service besides the period of probation

prescribed in rule 6. The appellant was appointed as Deputy

Superintendent of Police category 2 on 1.3.1982 and the

declaration of satisfactory completion of period of his

probation is with effect from 27.1.1987. It is a period of near

about 5 years. We find it difficult to restrict the relaxation

provided in rule 7(e) to only the first part of it ignoring the

latter part and there seems to be no reason to do so. The

declaration which the order of relaxation contains is that the

appellant had satisfactorily completed his probation in the

cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police category 2. A vain

effort has been made to say that maybe the appellant may

not have completed one year's period of initial probation

under rule 6, therefore, there could not be any declaration of

satisfactory completion of the period of three years after

period of one year in rule 6. We have not been able to

appreciate the said submission as declaration of satisfactory

completion of period of probation under rule 7(e) is without

any strings and noticeably the said declaration of satisfactory

completion of period of probation is in the cadre of Deputy

Superintendent of Police category 2. We, therefore, find no

merit in the submission that the order of relaxation may be

interpreted so as to confine it only to the time taken in

clearing the tests. It is also to be noticed that the order

dated 6.10.1989 does not declare the appellant as an

"approved probationer" as tried to be submitted. A bare

reading of the order shows that it relates to satisfactory

completion of period of probation in the cadre of Deputy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

Superintendent of Police category 2 without any restriction of

any kind.

Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel

appearing for the private respondents submits that the order

granting relaxation of service rules must be construed

strictly. It is submitted that the order dated 6.10.1989 should

be read as a whole and in doing so it would be clear that the

relaxation is under rule 26 of the A.P.State and Subordinate

Service rules. That is to say in regard to the period of more

than five half yearly examinations in clearing the tests taken

by the appellant. In support of strict construction of the

orders providing for relaxation from rules, reliance has been

placed upon a decision of this Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta

& Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC

561. Our attention has also particularly been drawn to

paragraph 28 of the decision where it is observed that there

can be no relaxation of basic or fundamental rules of

recruitment. In that context reference to another decision of

this Court, Keshav Chandra Joshi vs. Union of India, 1992

Suppl. (1) SCC 272 was made, where relaxation from the

rule requiring consultation with the Public Service

Commission was not accepted as such a condition was

treated to be mandatory. This case would not be applicable

to the case in hand. Learned senior counsel for the private

respondents has also submitted that rule empowering an

authority to relax the conditions of service etc. cannot be so

wide as to grant any kind of relaxation whatsoever. It is

submitted that rule 47 has been worded in very wide terms

and vests the authority with very wide powers. In connection

with the above submission, suffice it to observe that the

order of relaxation was passed on 6.10.1989. It was never

put under challenge. Neither by the present private

respondents nor by anyone else. Even during the

proceedings before the Tribunal no such ground about the

validity of rule 47 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Rules

was put in issue. We do not think it will be appropriate to

entertain the plea about the validity of rule 47 at this stage.

The other respondents have also not come forward with the

case that rule 47 is bad for vesting very wide powers in the

authority or that the order of relaxation is bad having gone

beyond the scope of rule 47. If at all, such a plea may

better be examined in any other appropriate case.

Presently, we find that it is beyond the scope of this appeal.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that

the validity of the rule has already been upheld by this Court

in a case reported in AIR 1977 SC p.451, Government of

Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Shri D.Janardhana Rao & Anr.,

We, however, leave this point at this without going further

into the matter.

The moot question which arises for consideration

is about the effect of the order of granting relaxation to the

appellant from rule 7(e) and the consequences which flow

from the said order. According to the appellant on

successful completion of period of probation nothing further

is required to be done before confirming the officer. All that

was required had been accomplished since the appellant

had cleared the tests as required under rule 6(b) as well as

has undergone the period of probation which has been

considered to be successful completion of period of

probation as per rule 7(e). That being the position the

appellant shall be deemed to have been confirmed. Whereas

Ms.K.Amareshwari, learned senior counsel for the

respondent no.3 submits that unless an order of confirmation

is passed the appellant cannot be deemed to have been

confirmed. It is further pointed out that the rules do not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

prescribe any maximum period of probation nor any

provision says that it shall not be extended beyond any given

period of time. In such circumstances, it is submitted, the

law is settled that there will be no automatic confirmation

unless such an order is passed. In our view, there cannot be

any dispute about the proposition that where no maximum

period of probation is provided there would be no automatic

confirmation of the employee on expiry of period of probation

unless an order is passed in that regard. In such cases it is

taken that the period of probation continues unless and until

an order of confirmation is passed. Our attention has been

drawn to a decision in the case of Commissioner of Police,

Hubli & Anr. vs. R.S.More, (2003) 2 SCC p.408. In this case

the appointing authority was empowered to extend the

period of probation up to certain prescribed limit but there

was a further provision that mere expiry of the prescribed

period or extended period of probation would not entitle the

probationer to claim satisfactory completion of his probation.

Hence he would continued to be under probation and it

would not be treated as deemed confirmation. In

connection with this case it may be observed that the rule

itself provided for extension of period of probation and

thereafter that completion of period of probation or extended

period of probation will not automatically entitle the

employee deemed to have been confirmed unless a specific

order in that regard is passed. Hence the above decision

would not be of any help to the respondent. It may further be

observed that in the matter of period of probation and

confirmation it would always depend upon the language of

the rule on the point. A reference has also been made to a

decision of this Court in the case of High Court of

M.P.through Registrar & Ors. vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar,

reported in (2001) 7 SCC 161, more particularly to

paragraph 11 of the judgment which we beneficially quote as

under :

"The question of deemed confirmation in

service jurisprudence, which is dependent

upon the language of the relevant service

rules, has been the subject-matter of

consideration before this Court, times without

number in various decisions and there are

three lines of cases on this point. One line of

cases is where in the service rules or in the

letter of appointment a period of probation is

specified and power to extend the same is

also conferred upon the authority without

prescribing any maximum period of probation

and if the officer is continued beyond the

prescribed or extended period, he cannot be

deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there

is no bar against termination at any point of

time after expiry of the period of probation.

The other line of cases is that where while

there is a provision in the rules for initial

probation and extension thereof, a maximum

period for such extension is also provided

beyond which it is not permissible to extend

probation. The inference in such cases is

that the officer concerned is deemed to have

been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum

period of probation in case before its expiry

the order of termination has not been passed.

The last line of cases is where, though under

the rules maximum period of probation is

prescribed, but the same requires a specific

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

act on the part of the employer by issuing an

order of confirmation and of passing a test for

the purposes of confirmation. In such cases,

even if the maximum period of probation has

expired and neither any order of confirmation

has been passed nor has the person

concerned passed the requisite test, he

cannot be deemed to have been confirmed

merely because the said period has expired."

According to the learned senior counsel for the

respondent, the appellant falls in first category as well as last

namely where no maximum period of probation is prescribed

as well as where along with successful completion of period

of probation he has also to achieve some other

accomplishment as in the present case to clear prescribed

tests in five half yearly examinations.

It may be pointed out that it is nobody's case that

the appellant is entitled to be deemed to have been

confirmed in view of any condition that the period of

probation is not extendable beyond a certain limit in which

event an employee is deemed to have been confirmed. We

feel that on this point a Constitution Bench decision of this

Court in State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh, 1968 (3) SCR

p.1, providing that if an employee is continued after

maximum period of probation which under the rules cannot

be extended any further the employee shall be deemed to

have been confirmed, continues to hold the field. But the

case in hand is not claimed to form the second category of

cases as quoted in para 11 of the decision in the case of

Satya Narayan Jhavar (supra).

Learned senior counsel for the respondent, rightly

points out that the case of the petitioner may fall in the first

and the third category of employees as indicated in para 11

of Jhavar's case quoted above. That is to say the rules do

not prescribe any maximum period of probation beyond

which it cannot be extended and that along with successful

completion of period of probation the employee has also to

pass the required tests. We feel, given by itself, without any

further facts the appellant would not be entitled to claim

deemed confirmation but for the fact that an order passed by

the competent authority dated 6.10.1989 intervenes which

makes a declaration that the appellant has satisfactorily

completed the period of probation. As discussed in detail, in

the earlier part of the judgment the relaxation has been given

in regard to the period taken in clearing the examination as

well as in regard to rule 7(e) latter part of which provides that

three years further period of satisfactory probation in addition

to one year period as provided under rule 6. The relaxation

is therefore, from both the requirements, in that background

the question which thus arises for consideration is, in such

circumstances there would be deemed confirmation of the

employee or not. In our view, this is a category of cases

other than those three mentioned in paragraph 11 in the

case of Satya Narayan Jhavar (supra). The logic behind not

treating a probationer deemed to be confirmed on

completion of period of probation is that unless there is an

order of confirmation he would be taken to be continuing on

probation. But here we are faced with a situation where the

state government itself has given a declaration that the

appellant has satisfactorily completed the period of probation

in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police category 2.

That being the position it cannot be said that despite the

above said order dated 6.10.1989 the appellant could still be

treated to be continuing on probation only for the reason that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

no specific order of confirmation has been passed. It will

rather be self-contradictory in terms. The inconsistency

cannot co-exist. Either the employee has successfully

completed the period of probation or he may still be in the

process of successful completion of probation even though

the period may run beyond the period prescribed for the

purpose. After successful completion of the period of

probation and any other condition or requirement as may be

prescribed under the rules nothing else is required to be

done and the only corollary to follow is that with successful

completion of period of probation the incumbent would be

deemed to have been confirmed. It would have been a

different matter if the appellant had only successfully

completed the period of probation but had not yet cleared

the tests as prescribed under rule 6(b) because in that case

there was yet another hurdle to be crossed but as seen in

the discussion held earlier, the appellant has satisfied both

the conditions namely, successful completion of period of

probation as well as he cleared the tests as prescribed under

the rules. Both the conditions having been complied with

and a declaration to that effect having been made under the

orders of the State in relaxation of the rules nothing else

remained to be done. At this stage it may also be observed

that in the case of Dayaram Dayal vs. State of M.P., (1997) 7

SCC 443, apart from the condition of completion of period of

probation the condition regarding clearing of the prescribed

departmental examinations was overlooked. It was,

therefore, found that mere completion of period of probation

was not enough without passing prescribed departmental

examination. Thus, the observation made in the case of

Satya Narayan Jhavar(supra) in relation to the case of

Dayaram Dayal (supra) that it does not lay down the correct

law will have no effect, so far the present case is concerned.

In view of the discussion held above, the position

that clearly emerges is that in absence of the order dated

6.10.1989 granting relaxation to the appellant in respect of

rules 6(a) and 7(e) the appellant would not have been in a

position to claim the benefit of deemed confirmation. But

once that relaxation has been granted and he is taken to

have cleared the tests in time and it was declared that he

would successfully completed the period of probation no

other formality had to be undergone, thus he would

inevitably be deemed to be confirmed. In this view of the

matter, the appellant was unreasonably put out of the

consideration for selection to the cadre of Indian Police

Service for the year 1989.

Ms.K.Amareshwari, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondent submitted that the Central

Administrative Tribunal had held that the question of

confirmation in the state services could not be considered by

it, therefore, the matter may either be remanded to the

Central Administrative Tribunal or the appellant may be

allowed to seek his remedy regarding confirmation before

the State Services Tribunal. We feel that the whole matter is

before us and all the parties have made their submissions

relating to all aspects of the matter. We don't think it would

be an appropriate case for remanding it to any Tribunal at

this late stage when the appellant has already retired from

service. However, this point has not been further pursued by

the learned senior counsel for the respondent and we feel

rightly.

In the result, the order passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are

directed to consider the case of the appellant for selection to

the Indian Police Service for the year 1989 and in case he is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11

selected he shall be entitled to notional promotions and

financial benefits only without affecting the position of the

private respondents in any manner whatsoever, which shall

be continued to be maintained treating their selection for

Indian Police Service in the year 1989.

Parties to bear their own costs.