Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, it has to be examined first of all as to what was the precise question on which reference was made to the Full Bench in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra) and how has the same been answered. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.03.2009, passed in Writ Appeal No.1267/2007 (State of M.P. and another vs. Prakash Chandra Jangre and others) held that the seniority of a probationer would be counted from the date he passes the requisite departmental examination. Another Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2009 passed in Writ Appeal No.510/2009 (Suresh Kumar vs. State of M.P. & others) and other connected matters held that even though a probationer may not have completed his probation period successfully, yet he would be senior to WP/1539/18 & linked matters the persons, who have been selected/appointed in the subsequent selection process. In view of such conflicting opinions, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2011 passed in Writ Appeal No.607/2011 (Dr. Masood Akhtar vs. R.K. Tripathi) and other connected matters, referred the matter to the Full Bench. The Full Bench while considering the reference as to which of the two views taken by the aforesaid Division Benches is correct, framed two questions, namely:- (i) what are the parameters on which the discretion conferred on appointing authority under Rule 12(1)(f) to assign lower seniority to probationer who has either not satisfactorily completed the period of probation or has not passed the departmental examination, has to be exercised and (ii) what is the interpretation of Rule 12(1)(a) and Rule 12(1)(f) of the Rules of 1961. It was this reference which was answered by the Full Bench on consideration of Rules 8, 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules of 1961") in Paras-5 to 12 of its order in Masood Akhtar (Dr.) (supra), in the following terms: