JUDGMENT
M.R. Agnihotri, J.
1. Petitioner, Narinder Singh Baath, Tehsildar, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, to consider his name for inclusion in Register A-1 belonging to Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars for a appointment to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976.
2. The Petitioner joined service in the State of Punjab as Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department on 17th June, 1977. He was selected as A-Class Tehsildar candidate on 17th September, 1979 and after completing the necessary training, he was appointed as Tehsildar regular on 31st December, 1981. Since then, he has been serving as such in the State of Punjab.
3. Under the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976, Separate Registers are being maintained for separate sources of recruitment. Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars are eligible for being appointed to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) from Register A I Rule 9 (5) of the aforesaid Rules reads as under :–
“9. (5) The name of a person shall not be included in the final list unless he-
(a) is a confirmed hand and has completed ten years continuous service under the Government;
(b) was under the age of 45 years on the first day of November immediately preceding the date of submission of names by the nominating authorities; and
(c) is a graduate of a recognised University.”
Since the petitioner joined service in the Revenue Department as Tehsildar on 17th September, 1979, and after completing, his training was posted as regular Tehsildar on 31st December, 1981, he had not completed ten years’ continuous service under the State Government as Tehsildar. As such, he has not been considered eligible for being brought on Register A-I from amongst Tehsildars for being appointed to the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch). According to the petitioner if his earlier service rendered by him as Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department, is also taken into consideration, he completes the requisite service of ten years. It is for the redressal of this grievance that the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the impugned action is sought to be justified by reiterating their stand that it is ten year’s service as Tehsildar in the Revenue Department which is required under the Rules and not any service rendered under the State Government.
5. Having gone through the written statement filed by the respondents and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the writ petition deserves to be allowed as the stand taken by the respondents is wholly untenable in law. The interpretation being placed by the respondents on the words “ten years’ continuous service under the Government” is not based on any rationale whatsoever, nor do the words used in the statutory rule permit such a restricted view to be taken. Rule 9 (5) of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) (Class I) Rules, 1976, only requires that before the name of a person can be included in the list, he should-
(i) be a confirmed hand; and
(ii) has completed ten years’ continuous service under the Government.
Any service which is continuous under the State Government is good enough for the purposes of this Rule. Emphasis on continuity of service is not in one and the same department on a particular post, but it has to be under the Government, that is, Government of the State of Punjab. Since the petitioner has served as Inspector, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, from 17th June, 1977 to 14th September, 1979, and 15th and 16th of September, 1979, were holidays being Saturday, and Sunday his joining as Tehsildar on 17th September, 1979, duly maintains continuity in service under the State Government.
6. So far as confirmation of the petitioner is concerned, that does not present any difficulty as the petitioner was appointed as Tehsildar in regular capacity against a permanent post. The maximum period of probation being three years, the petitioner’s service as Tehsildar, – that is from 17th September, 1979, as Tehsildar under training, and from 31st December, 1981, as regular Tehsildar till today, confers upon the petitioner an indefeasible right to retain the post of Tehsildar. Hence, having completed the maximum period of probation as Tehsildar, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed on that post, even if no express order of confirmation has been passed. In fact, the respondents have not even challenged his eligibility seriously on this score, as the whole emphasis is on the tea years’ continuous service under the Government.
7. Under the circumstances, I allow this petition and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for inclusion of his name in Register A-I from Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars for the purposes of his appointment in Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) under the statutory Rules of 1976 forthwith. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of this petition which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.