A person is entitled to confirmation in service and promotion in accordance with statutory rules and regulations, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be a ground for denying such confirmation or promotion.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents inter alia to confirm his services of the petitioner as Assistance Sub-Inspector of police and promote him to the cadre of sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1975. He was promoted to the rank of S. I. by an order dated 14-4-1976. However, according to the petitioner he has not yet been confirmed in the post of Assistant sub-Inspector of Police, although one Sashi Kant Ojha who was promoted to the post of s. I. in the year 1977 has been confirmed in the services on 1-3-1979 and promoted to the post of sub-Inspector of Police on 1-3-1981.

2. In this case a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been contended that the departmentaly promoted police Officers are confirmed in the post after one year of service whose service records are found satisfactory and clear.

3. It has been stated :

"for confirmation, permanent vacancies are calculated and arranged on state basis and officiating Assistant sub-Inspector are confirmed on the basis of State of Seniority. In the process an assistant sub-Inspector has to await in queiue for confirmation in the impugned case the service records of the petitioner was not found up to the mark. The petitioner had been paced under suspension vide Bhojpur D. O. No.3002/75, 25/79 and palamu Do Nos.1585/84, 2231/86, 1199/87, 10/88, 1983/88 and 802/91 on the charges contained in suspension orders relate to drunken state on duty and absconding without permission and leave. Bhojpur Departmental proceeding No.63/84, 25/87, 27/87, 63/88 and 101/88 were initiated against No.63/84, 25/87, 27/87 63/88 and 101/88 were initiated against the petitioner and he was found guilty of charges in all the proceedings moreover the proceeding No.4/89 and 126/91 are still pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has got thirteen punishments against six rewards till now. Thus it will appear that the petitioner has earned punishment more than double of rewards this speaks of unsatisfactory records of the petitioner because of this petitioner has not been confirmed in the rank of a. S. I. so far, since he has bad service so he cannot claim confirmation and subsequent promotion in the rank of sub-Insnec-tor of police as a matter of right "

4. It has also been contended that only those persons have been oromoted whose services records were found to be clear.

5. A rejoinder to the said counter-affidavit has been filed where with the petitioner has annexed various documents showing the awards given an punishmet imposed upon him which are contained in Annexures-3 and 4 series to the writ petition respectively.

6. As indicated hereinbefore, the first grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been confirmed in the post of S. I. and secondly he has not been promoted to the post of sub-Inspector of police.

7. So far as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned there is no doubt that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 14-9-1976 as is evident from Annexure-2/2 to the aforementioned rejoinder.

8. Rule 660 (b) of the Bihar Police Manual reads thus : -

"rule 660 (b ).- Assistant sub-Inspectors promoted from the ranks shall be on probation for one year. "

9. In view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of police in terms of the aforementioned Rule he should have either been confirmed with effect from 14-9-1977 qr his period of probation could have been extended.

10. There cannot be any doubt that in terms of the aforementioned provision, the period of probation is one year. The said period of probation was not extended in the case of the petitioner. The question as to whether a person is entitled to be confirmed upon expiry of the period of probation depends upon the statutory rules.

11. It has been suggested by the respondents in their coun