Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Now we proceed to consider the first line of cases in which the earliest one is Sukhbans Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1963) 1 SCR 416. In that case the Constitution Bench was considering the question of confirmation under rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 which provides that a candidate on first appointment to the service shall remain on probation for a period of 18 months and proviso thereto enables the Governor to extend the period of probation. Rule 24 of the said Rules provides that on the completion of the period of probation prescribed or extended, a member of the service shall be qualified for substantive appointment. It was laid down by this Court that a probationer cannot automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of service, unless of course the rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a result and the rules in that case did not contain any such provision. Rules 22, 23 and 24 were interpreted to mean that such a probationer is merely qualified for substantive permanent appointment where a probationer is not reverted by the Government under rule 23 on the ground that in the opinion of the Government his work or conduct was found to be unsatisfactory and where his service is not terminated under rule 23, he continues to be a probationer, but requires the qualification for substantive permanent appointment. According to the Rules, at the end of the probationary period, a probationer who is neither terminated nor absorbed in a substantive post will be eligible for being made permanent and he will continue to be a probationer. The very fact that a person is a probationer implies that he has to prove his worth and suitability for the higher post in which he is officiating. If his work is not found to be satisfactory, he is liable to be reverted to his original post even without assigning any reason. In the said case, this Court further observed that it would not be correct to say that the probationer has any right to the higher post in which he is officiating or a right to be confirmed and he being a probationer merely made eligible for being absorbed in a permanent post, is in no better position.

In G.S. Ramaswamy & Ors. Vs. Inspector-General of Police, Mysore, (1964) 6 SCR 279, another Constitution Bench was considering a case of promotion of Sub-inspector of Police under rule 486 of Hyderabad District Police Manual which provides that all officers who are promoted will be on probation for a period of two years and they may be reverted at any time during the aforesaid period if their work and conduct are not satisfactory, or they are found unsuitable for the appointment to which they have been promoted. This Court observed that the aforesaid provision in the Rules negatives the contention that the concerned officers had an indefeasible right to promotion and they could not be reverted after they had once started acting on the promoted post. By placing reliance upon the wordings of rule 486 which provides that promoted officer would be confirmed at the end of the probationary period if he has given satisfaction, this Court observed that according to the Rules when the probationary period is over and the promoted officer has given satisfaction during the whole of that period, he will be confirmed and the fact that he is actually promoted, temporarily or as officiating, does not give him any right to continuance even during the period of two years probation inasmuch as he will be liable to be reverted at any time even during those two years if his work is found unsatisfactory and he can be confirmed only when the authority concerned has found that his work and conduct were satisfactory during the probation period. In that case, it was contended by placing reliance upon the following sentence in rule 486, namely, promoted officers will be confirmed at the end of their probationary period if they have given satisfaction that the said rule expressly provided for automatic confirmation after the period of probation is over. This Court repelled the contention and held that such a rule does not contemplate automatic confirmation after the probationary period of two years, as a promoted officer can be confirmed under the rules only if he has given satisfaction, which condition of giving satisfaction must be fulfilled before a promoted officer can be confirmed under the rules and the same obviously means that the authority competent to confirm an officer must pass an order to the effect that the probationer has given satisfaction and is, therefore, confirmed.

The law on the point is now well settled. Where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or there is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. At the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer. The terms of appointment do not show that the appellant would be automatically confirmed on the expiry of the first six months of probation nor is any rule brought to our notice which has the effect of confirming him in the post after six months of probation. The position of the appellant, therefore, till the abolition of the post on November 4, 1958, was that he continued to be a probationer and has no right to the post. It, therefore, follows that when the tenure of the post came to an end, he was automatically reverted to his original post as an Inspector on which he had the lien.
as in the present case, the service rules fix a certain period of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended, and an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation is allowed to continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation without an express order of confirmation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that post as a probationer by implication. The reason is that such an implication is negatived by the service rule forbidding extension of the probationary period beyond the maximum period fixed by it. In such a case, it is permissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue in the post on completion of the maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by implication.