Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various judgments which shall be referred to while considering their respective submissions in detail.

We have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The main issue which has arisen in this case is as to whether the petitioner was still continuing as a probationer on the date when he was terminated or he is to be treated to have successfully completed his probationary period and has become confirmed as Assistant Professor.

Regulation 11 of the 2010 Regulations, prescribes that the minimum period of probation shall be one year extendable by a maximum period of one year in case of unsatisfactory performance. It further provides that the confirmation at the end of one year shall be automatic, unless extended for another year by a specific order, before expiry of the first year. It has been further made obligatory on the part of the institution to issue an order of confirmation to the incumbents within 45 days of completion of probationary period. The petitioner was appointed on 06/6/2010. The 2010, Regulations were enforced on 18/9/2010. The period of probation of the petitioner was never extended by the respondents, nor it is the case of the respondents that at any point of time the probationary period was extended. The one year period of probation thus came to an end on 06/6/2011, and even after enforcement of 2010, Regulations, the one year period came to an end before 18/10/2011. The probation period having not been extended, the confirmation of the petitioner at the end of one year is automatic.

5. In the present case, Rule 6(3) forbids extension of the period of probation beyond three years. Where, as in the present case, the service rules fix 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. The reason is that such an implication is negatived by the service rule forbidding extension of the probationary period beyond the maximum period fixed by it. In such a case, it is permissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue in the post on completion of the maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by implication.

8. 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 up to October 1, 1960 by implication. But under the proviso to R 6(3), the probationary period could not extend beyond October 1, 1960. In view of the proviso to R 6(3), it is not possible to presume that the competent authority extended the probationary period after October 1, 1960, or that thereafter the respondents continued to hold their posts as probationers.