D. Biswas, J.
1. The petitioner was enrolled as constable in 4th Assam Police Task Force Battalion and sent for training. No formal letter of appointment was issued to him except an identity card. He joined the training course with effect from 26.3.2001. During the course of training, on 30.8.2001, he was directed to leave the service and released. No formal order of discharge was served on him. The petition is footed on the ground that he has been denied the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner came to know that his discharge was founded on die police verification report which in dieted him for being involved in antisocial activities.
2. The respondents pleaded that the petitioner was enrolled for the purpose of appointment on successful completion, of training and satisfactory police verification report. During the course of training, the police verification import sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSB), Dhubri was received. The report disclosed that the petitioner was involved in Bilashipara P. S. Case No. 165/99 Under Section 365/34/120(B)/364(A)/302 I.P.C, r/w Section 10/ 13 UA(P) Act and r/w Section 27(B) Arms Act. The petitioner was discharged by an oilier passed on 29.8.2001 because of this unfavourable police report. It is further pleaded that a trainee constable is not entitled to any protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
3. Rules 19 to 31 of Part-III of Assam Police Manual deal with enlistment, appointment and discharge of constables. Rule 27 provides for an agreement to be executed by the appointee before enlistment undertaking to serve the State for three years. Rule 28 provides for verification rolls of constables. Rule 28(b) reads as follows :
'28(b) The older for enlistment will then be entered in the order book, the recruit's service sheet be prepared and die verification roll be dispatched for enquiry as to the antecedents of the man, to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station in the jurisdiction of which his home is situated.
The number and date of the despatch will be noted in the proper place in the service sheet, and on the return of the roll with a report that the man bears a good character and has made a truthful statement as to his antecedents, the Superintendent of Police will initial this entry and have the necessary entry made in the service sheet and order the verification roll to be filed. If the character of the man is reported to be bad, or his statement false, his name will be struck off.'
The above provisions clearly indicate that after enlistment, a recruitee constable is sent for training subject to police verification. On successful completion of training, the appointment certificate as provided in. Rule 30 is issued. This certificate is issued as is required by Section 8 of the Police Act, 1861.
4. There is no dispute that the petitioner was arrested and later, enlarged on bail. His alleged involvement in a case of kidnapping and murder leading to his arrest rendered him unsuitable for police service. The question is whether a person enrolled and deputed for pre-service training is entitled to any protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was not formally appointed. The respondent authority clearly indicated that his enlistment was for the purpose of appointment on successful completion of training. Jural relationship of master and servant commence the moment a person, joins a post after appointment. It is the established principle of law that even a probationer is not entitled to the protection under Article 311. An order of termination simpliciter in case of probationer is permissible. A person enlisted for appointment in police service on successful completion of training cannot be said to have acquired any right to hold the post. Unsatisfactory conduct or adverse police report before completion of training will definitely weigh with the appointing authority while taking a decision whether to appoint or not.
The authority was, therefore, competent to release the petitioner without notice before the certificate of appointment was issued under provisions of Rule 30.
5. The decisions in Dipti Prakash Banerjee, Appellant v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors., Respondents, (1999) 3 SCC 60 and in Biplab Mazumdar v. Union of India and Ors. (2001) 3 GLT 528 relied upon are of no relevance since these judgments are relatable to the rights and privileges of a probationer. Status of a pre-service trainee is distinct from that of an employee placed on probation after appointment.
6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.