Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(f) Services of the probationer can be terminated without assigning any reason.

14. Rule position that follows from the aforesaid is that though maximum period of probation is provided, at the same time rules also provide that Judicial Officer would be confirmed subject to his fitness. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that at the end of the maximum period of probation, the probationer would be deemed to be confirmed automatically.

6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

16. The same issue has been discussed at much greater length by a recent judgment dated 16.08.2010 of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.342 of 2010 in the case entitled Dy. Director of Education & Anr. Vs. Veena Sharma. The position in law based on various judgments of the Supreme Court was discussed holding that there was no automatic confirmation even after the maximum period of probation and the Rule stipulates that the employee shall be confirmed only on satisfactory completion of probation period. The entire gamut of discussion contained in the said judgment is relevant for us and we reproduce the same:

14. Thereafter, their Lordships referred to the decision in G.S. Ramaswamy & Ors. (supra), another Constitution Bench decision which was considering a case of promotion of Sub-Inspector of Police under Rule 486 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual which provided that all officers who are promoted will be on probation for a period of two years and they would be reverted at any time during the aforesaid period if their work and conduct were not found to be satisfactory or they were found unsuitable for the appointment to which they had been promoted. The three- Judge Bench while discussing the ratio of the Constitution Bench came to hold that the Constitution Bench had 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 conduct 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.

15. After dealing with the ratio of the aforesaid two Constitution Benches, their Lordships proceeded to deal with the view expressed in Akbar Ali Khan (supra) wherein the Constitution Bench has held thus:

"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 4.11.1958, 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."