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 [1962 SCR 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". 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. This condition of giving satisfaction must be fulfilled before a promoted officer can be confirmed under this Rule and this condition obviously means that the authority competent to confirm him must pass an order to the effect that the probationary officer has given satisfaction and is therefore confirmed. The petitioners therefore cannot claim that they must be treated as confirmed circle inspectors simply because they have worked for more than two years on probation; they can only become confirmed circle inspectors if an order to that effect has been passed even under this Rule by the competent authority. The first contention therefore that the petitioners before us have an indefeasible right to promotion once their names are put in the eligibility list and that they are entitled to continue as circle inspectors thereafter if they have once been promoted, on temporary or officiating basis, cannot be sustained."

16. Another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali Khan, AIR 1966 SC 1842, took the same view as follows:-

"6. The scheme of the Rules is clear : confirmation in the post which a probationer is holding does not result merely from the expiry of the period of probation, and so long as the order of confirmation is not made, the holder of the post remains a probationer. It has been held by this Court that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specified period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post, after the expiry of the said period without any specific order of confirmation he continues as a probationer only and acquires no substantive right to hold the post. If the order of appointment itself states that at the end of the period of probation, the appointee will stand confirmed in the absence of any order to the contrary, the appointee will acquire a substantive right to the post even without an order of confirmation. In all other case, in the absence of such an order or in the absence of such a service Rule, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give him such a right. Where after the period of probation an appointee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take is that by implication the period of probation has been extended, and it is not a correct proposition to state that an appointee should be deemed to be confirmed from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue after the end of the period of probation. See Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. National v. D.A. Lyall [CA 259 of 1963 decided on Feb 24, 1965]; Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC 1711] and Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior v. Beni Prasad Bhatnagar [CA 548 of 1962, decided on Jan 23, 1964]."

20. In Wasim Beg v. State of U.P. and Others, (1998) 3 SCC 321, the Supreme Court identified three possible categories of cases and observed as under:-

"15. Whether an employee at the end of the probationary period automatically gets confirmation in the post or whether an order of confirmation or any specific act on the part of the employer confirming the employee is necessary, will depend upon the provisions in the relevant Service Rules relating to probation and confirmation. There are broadly two sets of authorities of this Court dealing with this question. In those cases where the Rules provide for a maximum period of probation beyond which probation cannot be extended, this Court has held that at the end of the maximum probationary period there will be a deemed confirmation of the employee unless Rules provide to the contrary. This is the line of cases starting with State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh [AIR 1968 SC 1210 : (1968) 3 SCR 1], M.K. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank [1987 Supp SCC 643 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 347], Om Parkash Maurya v. U.P. Coop. Sugar Factories Federation [1986 Supp SCC 95 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 421 : (1986) 1 ATC 95], State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C. Bhargav [(1987) 4 SCC 482 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 460 : (1987) 5 ATC 167].

21. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in High Court of M.P. through Registrar and Others v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, declined to accept the principle of automatic or deemed confirmation and held as follows:-

"11. The question of deemed confirmation in service jurisprudence, which is dependent upon the language of the relevant service rules, has been the subject-matter of consideration before this Court, times without number in various decisions and there are three lines of cases on this point. One line of cases is where in the service rules or in the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation. The other line of cases is that where while there is a provision in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The inference in such cases is that the officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry the order of termination has not been passed. The last line of cases is where, though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same requires a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even if the maximum period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor has the person concerned passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired."