Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri S.k.Gambhir, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent being a probationer, acquires permanent status only on confirmation. Before confirmation the appellant had exercised its power, in terms of the rules, and terminated the respondent's service. The High Court committed manifest error of law in its finding that on expiry of two years period of probation the respondent must be deemed to have been confirmed under Rule 14 of the Municipal Officers and Servants Recruitment Rules which no longer were in force. He further contended that rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants' General Conditions of Service Rules, 1961 for short 'the Rules' expressly provides confirmation of probation as a condition precedent. Notice was issued terminating the service before confirmation and so it is valid in law. Shri S.S. Khanduja, learned counsel for the respondent contended that by operation of the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation under s. 25 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipality Act 1922 the Municipal Officers and Servants are governed by recruitment rules thereunder. Rule 14 thereof, relied on by the High Court expressly provided to put an employee on probation for a period of two years subject to being confirmed. At the end of the probationary period, if the probationer was found unfit, the Municipal Committee shall, if he was a direct recruit, to dispense with his service and if he has been recruited by tranfer, to revert to his original post. On expiry of the period of two years, no action was taken by the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the respondent must be deemed to have been confirmed. Thereafter the only power which the Corporation had was to terminate the service of the respondednt in accordance with Classification Control and Appeal Rules after conducting an enquiry and giving him reasonable opportunity that too for misconduct. No such procedure was adopted. Therefore, the impugned notice was illegal and the High Court was justified in granting the decree.

"The initial period of probation of the respondents ended on October 1, 1958. By allowing the respondents to continue in their posts thereafter without any express order of confirmation, the competent authority must be taken to have extended the period of probation upto October 1, 1960 by implication. But under the proviso to Rule 6(3), the probationary period could not extend beyond October 1, 1960. In view of the proviso to Rule 6(3), it is not possible to presume that the competent authority extended the probationary period after October 1, 1960, or that there after the respondents continued to hold their posts as probationers".

Accordingly it was held that the respondent therein was deemed to have been confirmed.

In Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-op.Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow & Ors. [1986] Suppl. SCC 95 this Court held that U.P. Co-op. Sugar Factories Federation Service Rules, 1976 made under the U.P. Co-op. Societies Act were in force. Regulations 17 of 1975 Regulations does not permit continuance of an employee for a period of more than two years. One year normally was the period of probation and further being extended to a period of one more year. Rule 5 of 1976 Rules does not prescribe any limit on the extension of the probationary period. In the light of the operation of those rules when the probationary period was prescribed on promotion to the post of Commercial Officers with a condition that his probationary period may be extended and he could be reverted to the post of Office Superinten-

dent without any notice, this Court held that the stipulation for extension of probationary period in the appointment order must be considered in accordance with the proviso to regulation 17(1) which means that the probationary period could be extended for a period of one year more and the probationary period was further extended to one year during which period the service of the appellant was neither terminated nor was he reverted to his substantive post, instead he was allowed to continue. On those facts this Court held that "since under those regulations' appellant's probationary period could not be extended beyond the maximum period of two years, he stood confirmed on the expiry of maximum probationary period and there after he could not be reverted to lower post treating him on probation". In M.A. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Bank & Ors., [1987] Suppl. SCC 643 and in State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors. [1987] 3 SCR 1091 this Court reiterated the same view.