Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.69 seconds)Commissioner Of Police Hubli And Anr vs R.S. More on 21 January, 2003
In such circumstances, it
is submitted, the law is settled that there
will be no automatic confirmation unless
such an order is passed. In our view,
there cannot be any dispute about the
proposition that where no maximum period of
probation is provided there would be no
automatic confirmation of the employee on
expiry of period of probation unless an
order is passed in that regard. In such
cases it is taken that the period of
probation continues unless and until an
order of confirmation is passed. Our
attention has been drawn to the decision in
the case of Commr. of Police vs. R.S.
More. In this case the appointing
authority was empowered to extend the
period of probation upto certain prescribed
limit. But there was a further provision
that mere expiry of the prescribed period
or extended period of probation would not
entitle the probationer to claim
satisfactory completion of his probation.
Hence he would continued to be under
probation and it would not be treated as
deemed confirmation. In connection with
this case it may be observed that the rule
itself provided for extension of period of
probation and thereafter that completion of
period of probation or extended period of
probation will not automatically entitle
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:22:13 :::
15
the employee deemed to have been confirmed
unless a specific order in that regard is
passed. Hence the above decision would not
be of any help to the respondent. It may
further be observed that in the matter of
period of probation and confirmation, it
would always depend upon the language of
the rule on the point.
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre For ... on 10 February, 1999
5. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that in G.R.
dated 28-03-1995 it is specifically
mentioned that, if it is found necessary to
terminate the service of Government employee on
the ground that, it is not possible to extend the
probation period or it is not necessary to
continue the services of the employee, who is on
probation, such employment shall be terminated
within three months from the completion of
probation period. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that no documentary
record was shown before M.A.T. about the
probation period which was extended on
humanitarian ground. The contention of the
learned Counsel Mr. Deshmukh, for the petitioner
was that the services of the petitioner are not
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:22:13 :::
8
terminated either during the period of two years
probation period or at the end of completing two
years of probation period. The services came to
be terminated after a period of about 6 years from
the date of completion of two years probation
period. This action of the respondents
terminating the petitioner's services after six
years from the date of completion of two years
probation period clearly amounts to imposition of
punishment as per Rule 5 of the Maharashtra State
Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules. If
the
termination is way of punishment or penalty,
in that event, action of issuing termination order
without giving opportunity to the petitioner to
explain and without following due procedure of law
laid down in Maharashtra State Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeals Rules), is clearly
violative of principles of natural justice and
therefore, Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the order of termination is bad in
law and the same needs to be quashed and set
aside.
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Thru. ... vs Satya Narayan Jhavar on 14 August, 2001
Reference has also
been made to a decision of this Court in
the case of High Court of M.P. vs. Satya
Narayan Jhavar, more particularly to para
11 of the judgment which we beneficially
quote as under : (SCC p. 169)
"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
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:22:13 :::
16
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."
State Of Maharashtra vs Veerappa R. Saboji And Anr on 6 September, 1979
In support of his contention,
learned A.G.P. Mr. N.B. Patil, for the
respondents relied on the decision of Apex Court
in State of Maharashtra vs. Veerappa R. Saboji
and another, reported in AIR 1980 SC 42.
State Of Punjab vs Dharam Singh on 2 February, 1968
(1) that it is imperative to put every
person appointed under sub-rule (2) on
probation for a minimum period of two years
"unless otherwise expressly directed" and
(2) on the expiry of the said period of two
years the person appointed may be confirmed
if there is a vacancy and if his work is
found to be satisfactory. The plain
meaning of the rule is that there is no
automatic confirmation on the expiry of the
probationary period of two years in the
first instance. On the expiry of the said
period and on the fulfilment of the
requirement of sub-clauses (a) and (b) a
Government servant becomes eligible for
being confirmed and normally he is likely
to be confirmed. But it is a matter of
common knowledge in many branches of
Government service including the Judiciary
that the administrative reasons or
otherwise the confirmation is delayed and
is made at a subsequent time. It may also
be delayed for watching the work of the
Government servant for a further period.
The expression "unless otherwise expressly
directed" governs only the first part of
clause (iv) and not the second as was
attempted to be argued by Mr. Nariman. In
my opinion the rule in question, therefore,
comes under the ordinary and normal rule
that without an express order of
confirmation the Government servant will
not be taken to have been confirmed in the
post to which he was appointed temporarily
and/or on probation. It is not covered by
the exceptional rule like the one which was
the subject matter of consideration of this
Court in State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh
(1968) 3 SCR 1."
Satya Narayan Athya vs High Court Of M.P. & Anr on 24 November, 1995
" 4. It is contended on his behalf by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that
since later record was found satisfactory
as per the norms laid down by the High
Court, the finding that his performance was
not satisfactory is not correct.