Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. In G.S. Ramaswamy and Ors. v. Inspector-General of Police, Mysore3, another Constitution Bench, while dealing with

-

the language employed under Rule 486 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, referred to the decision in Sukhbans Singh (supra) and opined as follows: -

2
AIR 1962 SC 1711 AIR 1966 SC 175 "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 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 r. 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 enable or qualified for promotion at the end of their probationary period which are the words to be often found in the rules in such eases; even so, though this part of r. 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". Clearly therefore the rule does not contemplate automatic confirmation after the probationary period of two years, for a promoted officer can only be confirmed under this rule if he has given satisfaction."

13. In State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh5, the Constitution Bench, after scanning the anatomy of the Rules in question, AIR 1966 SC 1842 AIR 1968 SC 1210 addressed itself to the precise effect of Rule 6 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961.

The said Rule stipulated that the total period of probation -

including extensions, if any, shall not exceed three years. This Court referred to the earlier view which had consistently stated that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules. Under these circumstances, an express order of confirmation is imperative to give the employee a substantive right to the post and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation, it is difficult to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed. When the service rules fixed 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. It is so as such an implication is specifically -

After so stating, the Bench referred to Rule 7(1) and came to hold as follows: -

"..................the explanation to rule 7(1) shows that the period of probation shall be deemed to have been extended impliedly if a Subordinate Judge is not confirmed on the expiry of this period of probation. This implied extension where a Subordinate Judge is not confirmed on the expiry of the period of probation is not found in Dharam Singh's case (supra). This explanation in the present case does not mean that the implied extension of the probationary period is only between two and three years. The explanation on the contrary means that the provision regarding the maximum period of probation for three years is directory and not mandatory unlike in Dharam Singh's case (supra) and that a probationer is not in fact confirmed till an order of confirmation is made."

(Emphasis supplied)

-

15. In Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow and others7, a two-Judge Bench was dealing with the case of confirmation under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. After referring to Regulations 17 and 18, it was held that as the proviso to Regulation 17 restricts the power of the appointing authority in extending the period of probation beyond the period of one year and Regulation 18 provides for confirmation of an employee on the satisfactory completion of the probationary period, it could safely be held that the necessary result of the continuation of an employee beyond two years of probationary period is that he would be confirmed by implication.