Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"8. It has further been urged on the basis of Rule 486 that as the petitioners had worked for more than two years on probation, they became automatically confirmed under the said Rule, and reliance is placed on the following sentence in Rule 486, namely, "promoted officers will be confirmed at the end of their probationary period if they have given satisfaction". The law on the question has been settled by this Court in Sukhbana Singh v. State of Punjab [SCR (1962) SC 1711] . It has been held in that case that a probationer cannot after the expiry of the probationary period automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of a service, unless of course the Rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a result. Therefore even though a probationer may have continued to act in the post to which he is appointed on probation for more than the initial period of probation, he cannot become a permanent servant merely because of efflux of time, unless the Rules of service which govern him specifically lay down that the probationer will be automatically confirmed after the initial period of probation is over. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners before us that the part of Rule 486 (which we have set out above) expressly provides for automatic confirmation after the period of probation is over. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. It is true that the words used in the sentence set out above are not that promoted officers will be eligible or qualified for promotion at the end of their probationary period which are the words to be often found in the Rules in such cases; even so, though this part of Rule 486 says that "promoted officers will be confirmed at the end of their probationary period", it is qualified by the words "if they have given satisfaction".

45. This view was followed by the Supreme Court in Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and Anr. vs. C.G. Sharma, (2005) 1 SCC 132 holding that a probationer remains a probationer unless confirmed on the basis of his work evaluation and that once there is no stipulation in the Rules prescribing maximum period of probation, there is no question of automatic or deemed confirmation. Relevant paras are as under :-

"26. A large number of authorities were cited before us by both the parties. However, it is not necessary to go into the details of all those cases for the simple reason that sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules is in pari materia with the Rule which was under consideration in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R. Saboji [(1979) 4 SCC 466 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 61] and we find that even if the period of two years expires and the probationer is allowed to continue after a period of two years, automatic confirmation cannot be claimed as a matter of right because in terms of the Rules, work has to be satisfactory which is a prerequisite or precondition for confirmation and, therefore, even if the probationer is allowed to continue beyond the period of two years as mentioned in the Rule, there is no question of deemed confirmation. The language of the Rule itself excludes any chance of giving deemed or automatic confirmation because the confirmation is to be ordered if there is a vacancy and if the work is found to be satisfactory. There is no question of confirmation and, therefore, deemed confirmation, in the light of the language of this Rule, is ruled out. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect has no merits and no leg to stand. The learned Single Judge and the learned Judges of the Division Bench have rightly come to the conclusion that there is no automatic confirmation on the expiry of the period of two years and on the expiry of the said period of two years, the confirmation order can be passed only if there is vacancy and the work is found to be satisfactory. The Rule also does not say that the two years' period of probation, as mentioned in the Rule, is the maximum period of probation and the probation cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no question of automatic or deemed confirmation, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. We, therefore, answer this issue in the negative and against the respondent."

would not be attracted. The pith and substance of the stated principles of law is that it will be the facts and the rules, which will have to be examined by the courts as a condition precedent to the application of the dictum stated in any of the line of cases aforenoticed.

47. There can be cases where the rules require a definite act on the part of the employer before an officer on probation can be confirmed. In other words, there may a rule or regulation requiring the competent authority to examine the suitability of the probationer and then upon recording its satisfaction issue an order of confirmation. Where the rules are of this nature the question of automatic confirmation would not even arise. Of course, every authority is expected to act properly and expeditiously. It cannot and ought not to keep issuance of such order in abeyance without any reason or justification. While there could be some other cases where the rules do not contemplate issuance of such a specific order in writing but merely require that there will not be any automatic confirmation or some acts, other than issuance of specific orders, are required to be performed by the parties, even in those cases it is difficult to attract the application of this doctrine.

(d) While there could be some other cases where the rules do not contemplate issuance of such a specific order in writing but merely require that there will not be any automatic confirmation or some acts, other than issuance of specific orders, are required to be performed by the parties. Even in those cases, there would be no „deemed confirmation‟.

65. In the present case Rule 8(a) of the 1972 Rules makes it evident that confirmation is not automatic. Also, there being no maximum period of probation, the mere completion of the initial period of probation would not automatically lead to a confirmation. However, since the Petitioners have placed considerable reliance on the minutes of the Selection Committee and the letters written to them by the Deputy Registrar (Estt) about their successful completion of probation, it requires examination whether those documents do bear out a "deemed confirmation" of the Petitioners."