JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.07.2020 whereby respondent has rejected her claim to permit her to rejoin as Lady Constable.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 28.10.2003. Her place of first posting was Police Lines, Rohtak. Thereafter, she was transferred to Bhiwani on 23.07.2007. Haryana Staff Selection Commission (in short 'HSSC') invited applications for the post of PTI Teacher. The petitioner applied for the said post of Teacher through proper channel. She participated in the selection process and came to be recommended by HSSC and was issued appointment letter dated 05.05.2010. She requested respondent-Police Department to relieve her. She was relieved by the said respondent to join as PTI Teacher. She joined as PTI Teacher on 07.05.2010. The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani sent her character roll and GPF No.57023 to the District Education Officer, Bhiwani The entire selection process of PTI Teacher came to be challenged. This Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2012 set aside the entire selection process. The petitioner and other selected candidates preferred LPAs before this Court. The Division Bench stayed the judgment of learned Single Judge and petitioner continued to work. LPAs came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 13.09.2013. The petitioner and other candidates preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which Court at the first instance stayed judgment of Division Bench of this Court, however, finally vide judgment dated 08.04.2020 dismissed Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2020 (arising out of SLP No.35373 of 2013). In view of the judgment dated 08.04.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide order dated 01.06.2020. The petitioner, at this stage, approached Police Department seeking rejoining on the ground that she was holding lien on her post of Constable, thus, she should be permitted to rejoin. The respondent rejected her claim on the ground that she remained out of service for more than 10 years and there is no provision to permit her to rejoin under Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short 'PPR').

3. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate submits that the petitioner served Police Department from 2003 to 2010. Probation period cannot be beyond three years. In case of Constables, no formal order of confirmation is passed. In reply to the RTI application, respondent has confirmed that no order of confirmation was passed in the case of her colleagues. The petitioner was having lien and as per Rule 30 of Haryana Civil Services Rules, 2016 (for short '2016 rules'), she continued to hold lien on her post of Constable because she joined Education Department through proper channel and was never confirmed in the Education Department. There was two years' probation, however, prior to her confirmation, entire selection process was declared bad by this Court. On account of interim orders of Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, she continued to work till 2020. The Education Department in its reply has confirmed that the petitioner was never confirmed in the Education Department. She never acquired lien on the post of Teacher, thus, her lien on the post of Constable continued. As per respondent, Rule 30 of Haryana Civil Services Rules is inapplicable because 2016 Rules are not retrospective and petitioner was relieved from Police Department in 2010. If 2016 Rules are inapplicable, she is governed by Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to State of Haryana). As per Rules 3.12 and 3.15, she was having lien on the post of Constable and it continued despite her joining as Teacher.

4. On 03.07.2025, the following order was passed by this Court:-

'The State is claiming that petitioner was appointed on probation. The period of probation was two years which could be further extended.