Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) The Assessing Authority under whom the employee on probation is working, shall send to the Registrar or the Principal at least three months before the expiry of probationary period, a report about the work and conduct of the employee with specific recommendations for his confirmation in service or otherwise. If the Assessing Authority recommends that the employee should be confirmed in the service within less than two years or probationary period, he should substantiate his recommendation. When he recommends action other than confirmation, he should furnish sufficient particulars about the probationer's performance 8 wp2969-1997+ and conduct in support of his recommendation.

9 wp2969-1997+

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on regular basis to the above-mentioned posts. They were on probation for a period of one year as per their respective appointment orders dated 15.07.1991, though sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 prescribes the period of probation for two years. He, then, submits that as per sub-rule (4), the Assessing Authority under whom the petitioners were working, was under an obligation to send to the Registrar or Principal, at least three months before the expiry of the probationary period assessment report about working and conduct of the petitioners with specific recommendations for confirmation of their services or otherwise. On receipt of such report it was necessary for the Registrar or the Principal, as contained in sub-rule (5), to place such report with the recommendations of Assessing Authority before the Competent Authority for consideration, whereon it was open for the Competent Authority to confirm the petitioners from any particular dates or extend their probationary period 10 wp2969-1997+ maximum by one year (six months at a time), on expiry of which they were liable either to be confirmed or their services were liable to be dispensed with or terminated. He then submits that as per sub-rule (6), if in the opinion of the Appointing Authority, the work or behaviour of the petitioners during the period of probation was not satisfactory, the said authority was empowered to terminate the services of the petitioners without assigning any reasons, at any time during the period of their probation only after giving them one month's notice. He submits that the petitioners served with respondent no.1 from July/August 1991 to 02.01.1997 i.e. for about 5 1/2 years. As per sub-rule (5) (b) the period of probation of the petitioners was liable to be extended for a maximum period of one year after their initial period of probation of one year.

"15. Whether an employee at the end of the probationary period automatically gets 14 wp2969-1997+ 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 Singh2, M.K. Agrawal v.

17. The other line of cases deals with rules where there is no maximum period prescribed for probation and either there is a rule providing for extension of probation or there is a rule which requires a specific act on the part of the employer (either by issuing an order of confirmation or any similar act) which would result in confirmation of the employee. In these cases unless there is such an order of confirmation, the period of probation would continue and there would be no deemed confirmation at the end of the prescribed probationary period. In this line of cases one can put Sukhbans Singh v. State 16 wp2969-1997+ of Punjab14, State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali Khan 15, Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab16, Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai v. State of Gujarat17 and Tarsem Lal Verma v. Union of India18, Municipal Corpn. v. Ashok Kumar Misra12 and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh Khosla6. In the recent case of Dayaram Dayal v. State of M.P. 7 (to which one of us was a party) all these cases have been analysed and it has been held that where the rules provide that the period of probation cannot be extended beyond the maximum period there will be a deemed confirmation at the end of the maximum period there will be a deemed confirmation at the end of the maximum probationary period unless there is anything to the contrary in the rules."