Holding

The Court held that successful completion of the training is an essential condition of continuance, making the discharge justified, but the respondents are entitled to a one‑month extension under the manual and, if they subsequently pass, may be readmitted subject to vacancy without entitlement to back wages or seniority.

Summary

A batch of constables appointed on probation were discharged for failing to pass a language test and for not successfully completing ten months of basic training. The respondents claimed exemption from the language test under Rule 14 and argued that the appointment order did not require successful completion of training. The State contended that successful completion of training is an inherent condition of continuance under the various service rules and that discharge was justified. The Supreme Court held that the training requirement is indeed an essential condition and that the authorities were justified in discharging the respondents for failure to pass the training tests, but noted that a one‑month extension under Para 10 of the recruits’ manual should be granted. If the respondents subsequently pass the tests, they may be readmitted subject to vacancy, without any claim to back wages or seniority, though pension benefits will be counted.

Issues considered

Whether successful completion of the prescribed training is a condition of continuance for constables appointed on probation under the Andhra Pradesh service rules.
Whether exemption from the language test under Rule 14 bars the State from discharging the respondents.
Whether the authorities were required to grant the one‑month extension provided in Para 10 of the recruits’ manual before effecting discharge.
What are the consequences of possible readmission with respect to back wages, seniority and pensionary benefits.

Subjects

service lawprobationtraining completiondischargelanguage test exemptionpolice recruitmentadministrative tribunalreinstatementpensionary benefits

Judgment

COMMANDANT, I !TH BATTALION, A.P. SPECIAL POLICE (IR), A
CUDDAPAH, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT
v.
B. SHANKAR NAIK
...
APRIL 25, 2003.
B
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]

Service Law:

A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules-Rule ll(a)-A.P. State and C
Subordinate Service Rules, 1962-Rule 13-A (a)(i)-A.P. State and
Subordinate Service Rules1 1996-Rule 16(j)(i) and 17(5)-A.P. Special
; Armed Police Service Rules-Rules 6 and 7-Manual for Andhra Pradesh
Police Recruits Schools--Para 10-Appointment of Constables-Probation-
10 months basic training and passing language test withfn probation period D
required-Recruits discharged on the ground of failure to successfully
complete the training-Extension under Manual not provided-Plea that
successful completion of training not required-Held : Authorities justified
in discharging the recruits as they failed lo success/11lly complete the training-
S11ccess/11I completion of training is an inbuilt requirement for continuance-
However, in the interest_ ofjustice extension of one month granted for successful E
completion of training in terms of para 10 of the Manual.

Respondents, appointed as Constables, were placed on probation. The
condition stipulated in the appointment order was that they should pass the
language test within the period of probation and in case of failure they shall F
be discharged from the service; and that they should undergo IO months basic
training. Services of the respondents were discharged on the ground that they
had failed to pass the prescribed test within the prescribed period of probation.
The order of discharge was challenged on the ground that they were exempted
from passing the language test under Rule 14 of A.P. State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1962. The challenge was not accepted hence they approached G
State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal
holding that they had not successfully completed the training. The Tribunal's
order was challenged before the High Court and it held that the orders of
dismissal were not tenable, since the concerned Constables were entitled to
exemption and since the order of appointment did not refer to any other test H
905
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A in which the selected recruits were required to come out successful.
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the orders of discharge
were passed on several grounds viz. failure to pass the language test and
secondly, non completion of the training; and that even if it was conceded that
the recruits were exempted from passing the language test, yet it could not
B be lost sight of that the very purpose of undergoing training is to successfully
complete it and in case of unsuccessful completion of the training there was
no scope for seeking continuance. -
Respondents contended that the appointment orders only referred to the
C period of probation and the language test and there was no requirement of
coming out successful in the training.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELO: I.I. The order of appointment clearly stipulates that the recruits
D should undertake ten months basic training. Obviously, the training which is
given cannot be rendered purposeless. If it is accepted that the tlppointment
order did not require coming out successful in the training, it would mean
that the training was intended to be a meaningless and purposeless exercise
without having any relevance. This certainly cannot be the intention. A person
who is sent for training is required to comprehend as to what is the effect of
-
E the training. If after completion of the training, it is found by the authorities
that the trainee has not succeeded in the test conducted after training, the
inevitable conclusion is that he has not undertaken training successfully. It
has to be construed that the requirements stipulated in the appointment orders
were not fully complied with. When the recruit was to undertake ten months
F basic training, it obviously means successful completion of the training.
Undisputedly, the same has not been done. The authorities were justified in
passing the order ofdischarge.1909-F-H; 910-AI

1.2. Conspectus of provisions under Rule I l(a) of A.P. Police
Subordinate Service Rules, Rules 16(t)(i) and 17(5) of A.P. State and
G Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and rules 6 and 7 of A.P. Special Armed
Police Service Rules provide a further basis for the conclusion that successful
completion of the training is an inbuilt requirement for continuance. Para
10 of the Manual also throws beacon light by providing for extension by one
month for a fresh try. 1911-FI

H 1.3. The ground for discharge is the failure of respondents to come out
J
J._

COMMANDANT. 1ITH BATT ALION. A.P. SPECIAL POLICE (IR). CUDD AP AH •·. B.S. NAIK [PASAY AT. J.) 907
successful in the indoor and outdoor subject tests conducted. However, it does A
not appear that one month's extension as provided in Para IO of Manual for
Andhra Pradesh Police Recruits Schools·was granted. Interest of justice would
be best served if chance in terms of Para 10 is granted to the respondents. If
the respondents come out successful in the tests to be conducted, their services
shall be continued, but in case of their being failure, orders of discharge will B
be effective. 1911-H; 912-A, BJ

2. The respondents are not in service. If they come out successful in
training pursuant to directions in these appeals, they can only be adjusted if
there are existing vacancies or against the vacancies that may arise till the
end of 2005 in order of seniority-cum-merit inter se, subject to their C
satisfying all other eligibility conditions. In case they are adjusted in the
vacancies as stated above, they shall not be entitled to claim any back wages
or arrears of salary or any other emoluments and the period during which
they were out of service shall not be counted for seniority; however, it shall
be reckoned only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. (912-D.. E(
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3618 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.1999 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 24254of1998.

WITH E
Civil Appeal Nos. 3619, 3620, 4949, 7206-7209, 7080, 7395 and 7394 of
2000.

Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. T. Anamika and R. Chandrashekar Reddy, for the
Appellants. F
L. Nageswar Rao, R. Santhana Krishnan, V. Sridhar Reddy and K.
Sudharshan for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These appeals involve common point of dispute
and, therefore, are disposed of by this judgment,.which shall govern each one
of them.

The appeals are directed against judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in several writ petitions by which judgments of the Andhra Pradesh H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') were set aside. A batch of
32 original applications was disposed of by a common order. The applicants
in some of those moved the High Court as Tribunal had rejected their
applications. They are respondents in Civil Appeals 3618, 3619, 3620, 7206 to
7209, 7080, 7394 and 7395/2000. Six others had filed a joint petition before the
B Tribunal. They are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4949/2000.

Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief:

The respondents in these appeals were appointed as Constables along
with several others, total number being 732. They were placed on probation
C for a period of three years and were also required to undergo training in the
A.P. Police Recruits School under Rule l l(a) of the A.P. Police Subordinate
Service Rules (in short the 'Special Rules'). One of the conditions stipulated
in the appointment order is that they should pass the language test within
a period of probation and in case of failure they shall be discharged from the
service. This is in terms of Rule 13-A (a)(i) of the A.P. State and Sub-ordinate
D Service Rules, 1962 (in short 'the General Rules'). The selected candidates
were sent for training to the Police Recruits School and after completion of
the training, they were to be posted at different places to work as Constables.
In the appointment order it was clearly indicated that they should undergo
ten months basic training. Their services were terminated under Rule 16(f)(i)
E of the A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996 (in short 'the New
General Rules') on the ground that they had failed to pass the prescribed test
within the prescribed period of probation. Said orders of termination were
challenged on the ground that said Rules were not applicable to them as they
had passed the SSC examination with Telugu as medium of instruction. They
were exempted from passing the language test under Rule 14 and as such the
F orders of discharge were bad. As this plea was not accepted, the respondents
moved applications before the Tribunal. The basic question raised was whether
the applicants were required to pass the language test prescribed under Rule
13-A(a)(ii) of the General rules. Reference was made to Rule 14 of the said
rules to claim the exemption. The Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal taking
note of the stand pressed into services by the State and its functionaries that
G they had nor successfully completed the training. Reference was made to
paragraph JO of the manual for A.P. Recruits School and held that in view of
the mandatory requirement of taking .training in the recruits schools as laid
down under Rule 11 and 2(a) of the Special Rules, there was a requirement
to successfully complete the training as the Constables, who were trainees.
H Their dismis~al was claimed to be in order. It was held by the Tribunal that
I
.(_

COMMANDANT. 1ITH BATTALION. AP SPECIAL POLICE CIR). CUDDAPAH •• B.S NAIK [PASAYAT, J.} 909

the syllabus prescribed in the manual for the police recruits assumes a A
mandatory character and the prescriptions in the syllabus under the manual
have to be followed and rightly, therefore, the orders of discharge were
passed. Orders of the Tribunal were challenged before the Andhra Pradesh
High Court which by the consolidated impugned orders held that the orders
of dismissal were not tenable, since the concerned Constables had passed B
SSC examination in Telugu medium with Telugu as one of the subjects.
Therefore, they were entitled to exemption and the order of discharge was
bad. It was held that the order of appointment did not refer to any other test
in which the selected recruits were required to come out successful and,
therefore, the orders of discharge were bad.

In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
c
that the approach of the High Court is erroneous. The orders of discharge
were passed on several grounds. Firstly, non-passing the language test and
secondly non-success in the training. Even if it is conceded that the recruits
were exempted from passing the language test because of the applicable rules,
' yet it cannot be lost sight of that the very purpose of undergoing training D
' is to successfully complete it. If one does not successfully complete the
training, there is no scope for seeking continuance. Statutorily such
prescriptions were imposed.

In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
appointment orders only referred to the period of probation and the language E
test. There was no requirement about coming out successful in the training.
That being so, according to him, High Court was justified in setting aside the
order of discharge.

The specimen copy of an order of appointment was placed on record. F
This clearly stipulates, as noted supra, "They should undertake ten months
basic training, commencing from 1.11.1994". Obviously, the training which is
given cannot be rendered purposeless. If the contention of the respondents
is accepted, it would mean that the training was intended to be a meaningless
and purposeless exercise without having any relevance. This certainly cannot
be the intention. A person who is sent for traifling is required to be G
comprehended as to what is the effect of the training. If after completion of
the training, it is found by the authorities that the trainee has not succeeded
in the test conducted after training, the inevitable conclusion is that he has
not undertaken training successfully. It has to be construed that the
requirements stipulated in the appointment orders were not fully complied H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A with. When the recruit was to undertake ten months basic training, it obviously
means successful completion of the training. Undisputedly the same has not
been done. The authorities were justified in passing the order of discharge.
This position gets crystal clear when some of the relevant provisions are
considered.

B Rule J l(a) of the Special Rules reads as follows:

"Probationers shall undergo training and examination as within the
period of their probation and course of training and their pay during
the training period shall be the basic pay of the post plus usual
allowances admissible at the time of training.
c
Probationers Course of training

xx xx xx

4. Constables other (i) Band If appointed otherwise by transfer
D Constables, Reserve Constables, from the A.P. Special Police Training
Buglers and Bellow Boys (Category- for a period of not less than six
5 of Class I) and Cagegory-2 of Class months in a Police Recruit School
IV). or in any of the A.P. Special Police
Battalions."
E
Rule 16(f)(i) and 17(5) of the New General Rules read as follows:

"16(f)(i): If within the period of probation a candidate fails to pass
such tests or acquire such qualifications as may be prescribed in
these rules or in the special rules, the appointing authority shall, by
F order, discharge him from the service unless the period of probation
is extended under the sub rule (b) of Rule 17 and if within such
extended period also, the candidate fails to pass such tests or acquire
such special qualifications, the appointing authority shall discharge
him from service.

G 17(5): In the case of any probationer failing to pass the tests or
acquire the prescribed qualifications, the appointing authority may
extend his probation to enable him to pass the prescribed tests or
acquire special qualifications, as the case may be. Such extension by
the appointing authority shall not exceed one year, whether on duty
or otherwise in such service, class or category".
H
COMMANDANT, I ITH BATTALION, AP. SPECIAL POLICE(IR), CUDDAPAH "·BS NAIK (PASAVAT,J.J 9J l

Para I0 of the Manual for Andhra Pradesh Police Recruits Schools reads A
as follows:

"10: Period of training:- Recruit Constables shall undergo training for
a period of six months in a Police Recruits School. A recruit who
passes his examinations should be passed out at the end of six
months irrespective of short leave or sickness, but, if he does not B
pass his examination, he may be retained for one more-month, examined
again and, if successful, passed out, with the next batch of recruits.
Men failing to pass after the extra months must discharged."

Reference may be made also to Rules 6 and 7 of the A.P. Special Anned C
Police Service Rules (in short 'Armed Police Rules'), which read as follows:

.. Rule 6 Probation: Every person appointed a Category shall, from ·
the date on which he joins duty, 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 on duty within a D
continuous period of two years if recruited by promotion or by transfer.

Rule 7 Training: (I )A probationer appointed as otherwise than by
promotion shall, within the prescribed period of his probation, undergo
training in the Police Recruits School of a period of not less than six
months and thereafter advanced training for a period not less than E
four months in the Andhra Pradesh Special Police battalion, tc the
satisfaction of the Commandant."

Conspectus of these provisions provides a further basis for the
conclusion that successful completion of the training is an inbuilt requirement
for continuance. Para I0 of the Manual also throws beacon light by providing F
for extension by one month for a fresh try.

It may be noted that there is some amount of confusion as to ~hat was
the ground for discharge. While the respondents contend that the same was
relatable to non-passing of the language test, stand of the appellant is that G
it related also to failure in passing the test after training. It appears that after
the training the indoor and outdoor activities were assessed and marks were
also allotted. The assessment is clearly permissible and as noted above
cannot be isolated from the requirements of successful completion of the
training. This was highlighted by the appellant before the Tribunal and the
High Court. However, no other deficiency has been noted by the authorities. H
>·

912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A What remains is the failure of respondents to come out successful in the
indoor and outdoor subject tests conducted. While the indoor activities
related tG tests on various subjects, outdoor test related to skill in various
activities etc.

However, it does not appear that one month's extension as provided in
B Para I0 of the Manual was granted. Interest of justice would be best served
if chance in terms of Para 10 is granted to the respondents. If the respondents
come out successful in the tests to be conducted, their services shall be
continued, but in case of their being failure, orders of discharge will be·
effective.
c However few facts need to be noted at this stage.

The original applications filed by the respondents were dismissed by
the Tribunal nearly five years back. This Court stayed operation of the High
Court's judgment which was in favour of the respondents more than three
D years back. In other words, the respondents are not in service. If they come
out successful in training pursuant to directions in these appeals, they can
only be adjusted if there are existing vacancies or against the vacancies that
may arise till the end of2005 in order of seniority-cum-merit inter-se, subject
to their satisfying all other eligibility conditions. In case they are adjusted in
the vacancies as stated above, they shall not be entitled to claim any back
E wages or arrears of salary or any other emoluments and the period during
which they were out of service shall not be counted for seniority, however,
it shall be reckoned only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This order
is confined to the respondents in these appeals only and none else.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
F
KKT. Appeals disposed of.