Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12.4 The learned Counsel referred to the circular dated 30th March, 1989 wherein the guidelines for putting an end to and extending the period of probation of employees/officers appointed on probationary basis are laid down. Reference was made in particular to clause (10) of the said circular which provides that under any circumstances, within three months of completion of the period of probation, the probationary period should be put to an end and orders giving long term appointment or extending the period of probation should be passed.

14. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Sr. Advocate and Advocate General submitted that there are mainly three aspects of the matter, namely:

(i) What is the status of the present petitioner,
(ii) Whether there is an automatic confirmation,
(iii) Scope of judicial review in the matter of assessment of the work of a probationer.

14.1 Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Court will have to look to the order of appointment to find out what is the status of the petitioner. He referred to the order of appointment dated 12th October, 1999 and pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner was temporary, ad hoc and on probation for a period of two years. It was submitted that, thus, the status of the petitioner is ad hoc, temporary or probationary till appointed on regular or long term basis.

"3. Upon satisfactory completion of probation period, long term/regular appointment shall be given and upon orders for regular appointment being made, the same shall be considered as regular appointment."
"4. If services during the probationary period are not found to be satisfactory by the competent authority, the services shall be brought to an end with immediate effect during the probationary period without giving any notice, i.e., during the period of probation, services shall be considered to be ad hoc and temporary."

21. Subsequently in the case of Kedar Nath Bahl (Supra), the Supreme Court held that 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. It was held that unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period or there is a specific rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. It was held that 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. In the facts of the present case, there is an express provision which requires the making of an order of long term/regular appointment upon satisfactory completion of probationary period. Hence, there is no question of automatic confirmation of probation.