Probationers should be deemed confirmed after the expiry of the maximum probation period, and they are entitled to the benefits of annual increments.

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the respondents, vide which, the petitioners have not been confirmed even on completion of probation period. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularize the probation period by confirming their services and to release the annual grade increments along with arrears of pay and interest.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in pursuance to advertisement dated 10.10.2008, the petitioners applied for the post of Medical Officers. One more advertisement was issued on 19.02.2009 for apointment of 212 Medical Officers. However, on the basis of recommendations made by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala (here-in-after called as `PPSC'), the petitioners were appointed as Medical Officers for the Batches 2008 and 2009 in the pay scale of Rs.7880-13500/- with starting basic pay of Rs.8000/-, whereas, the 2009 Batch, Medical Officers were appointed in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+5400 G.P+NPA. Thereafter the petitioners joined their duties and were put on probation for a period of two years in view of Punjab Civil Medical Services (Class II) Rules, 1982 (now Class I Service) (here-in-after referred to as ` the Rules, 1982'). Rule 11 provides that in case, during the period of probation, the work and conduct of any employee is not found satisfactory, then his/her services would be terminated. Proviso to Rule 11(3) further provides that the maximum period of probation cannot be more than three years, whereas, the petitioners have already completed more than eight years of service as on today but still they are not being confirmed on the ground that their appointment is under consideration before this Court and aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were put on probation initially for a period of two years, which was extendable as per Rules and maximum probation period could not be more than three years but still they have not been confirmed despite completing their period of probation satisfactorily and successfully, only on the ground that their appointment is under challenge and that case is still pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are liable to be confirmed. He has also relied upon the judgment of larger Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court in case The State of Punjab vs Dharam Singh, 1968 AIR (SC) 1210 in support of his contentions, wherein, it was held that the probationer must be deemed to have been confirmed on the post after expiry of period of probation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the basis of reply , submits that bunch of writ petitions are pending, wherein, the appointment of the petitioners and other doctors has been challenged. The Vigilance Department has also conducted an inquiry into the selection of Medical Officers pertaining to Batches-2008 and 2009. A Special Investigation Team was constituted to hold an enquiry into the selection of doctors and report to that effect has been submitted and the same has been accepted by the Government.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available on the file.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners have applied in pursuance to advertisement dated 10.10.2008 published by the `PPSC’. Thereafter, one more advertisement dated 19.02.2009 was published for appointment of Medical Officers (General) in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab. The petitioners applied for appointment as Medical Officers in view of above said advertisements and on the basis of recommendations made by `PPSC’, they were appointed by granting regular pay scale and were put on probation for a period of two years. The conditions of service of the petitioners are governed by the Rules, 1982. As per Ru