Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. One line of cases has held that if in the rule or order of appointment a period of probation is specified and a power to extend probation is also specified and the officer is continued beyond the prescribed period of probation, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed, and there is no bar on the power of termination of the officer after the expiry of the initial period of probation. In the case before a Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1962 SC 1711, Rule 22 of the relevant rules provided a period of probation and contained a provision for extension of probation, Rule 23 for termination during probation and Rule 24 for substantive appointment on completion of probation. It was held that "a probationer cannot .....automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of a service. unless of course the rules under which he is appointed expressly provides for such a result. The rules governing the Provincial Civil Services of Punjab do not contain any provision whereby a probationer at the end of the probation period is automatically absorbed as a permanent member of the Civil Service." At the end of the probation, he is merely qualified or eligible for substantive permanent appointment. Thus termination after expiry of initial period of probation was held not invalid. Another Constitution Bench followed the above judgment (vide) G.S. Ramaswamy v. I.G. of Police, Mysore : (AIR 1966 SC 175) to say that Rule 486 of the relevant Hyderabad Rules did not provide for automatic confirmation after 2 years of probation unless the officers "have given satisfaction". Similar was the position in the case before another Constitution Bench in State of UP v. Akbar Ali Khan : (1966) 3 SCR 821 : (AIR 1966 SC 1842). Here also the Apex Court held that on completion of 2 years of probation as per rules, the officer continued to be a probationer until an order of confirmation was passed. Sukhbans Singh's case (supra) was followed and it was stated that unless the order of appointment or the rule said that at the end of the probationary period, if no order was passed, the officer is to be deemed to have been confirmed, the officer continued to be on probation. The facts in Kedar Nath v. State of Punjab : (1974) 3 SCC 21 : (AIR 1972 SC 373) decided by a three Judge Bench are also similar and the earlier rulings set out above were followed. In Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1985) 2 SCC 50 : (AIR 1985) SC 603), also the period of probation fixed under the Rules was two years and there was also provision for extension but no maximum was prescribed. The termination was after the expiry of the period of 2 years of probation. A three Judge Bench took the view that there could be no automatic confirmation at the end of two years and that the termination after 2 years was valid.

It was held by Apex Court as follows :

"Under the Note to Sub-rule (2) if the probationer is neither confirmed nor discharged from service at the end of the period of probation, he shall be deemed to have been continued in service as probationer subject to the condition if his services being terminated on the expiry of a notice of one calendar month given in writing by either side."

The consequence of the Note was explained further as follows :

"As per Sub-rule (6), on passing the prescribed departmental examination and on successful completion of the period of probation, the probationer shall be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. Then he becomes an approved probationer. Therefore, after the expiry of the period of probation and before its confirmation, he would be deemed to have been continued in service as a probationer. Confirmation or probation would be subject to satisfactory completion of probation or to pass in the prescribed examination. Expiry of the period of probation therefore, does not entitle him with a right of deemed confirmation. The rule contemplates to pass an express order of confirmation in that regard. By issue of notice of one calendar month in writing by either side, the tenure could be put an end, which was done in this case."