Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.77 seconds)

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Thru. ... vs Satya Narayan Jhavar on 14 August, 2001

In High Court of M.P. Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar2 a three Judge bench of the Supreme Court was considering a reference made to it by a two Judge bench disagreeing with the view taken by another two Judge bench in Dayaram Dayal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3. The Supreme Court, after considering various Constitution Bench judgments as well as series of other decisions, noticed that there are three line of cases on the point viz. (a) where in the service rules or 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; (b) 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 officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry order of termination has not been passed; and (c) where though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same require 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 the person concerned has passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 81 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Dayaram Dayal vs State Of M.P. And Anr on 28 August, 1997

In High Court of M.P. Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar2 a three Judge bench of the Supreme Court was considering a reference made to it by a two Judge bench disagreeing with the view taken by another two Judge bench in Dayaram Dayal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh3. The Supreme Court, after considering various Constitution Bench judgments as well as series of other decisions, noticed that there are three line of cases on the point viz. (a) where in the service rules or 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; (b) 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 officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry order of termination has not been passed; and (c) where though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same require 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 the person concerned has passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 198 - M J Rao - Full Document

Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962

But it cannot be said that merely because a maximum period of probation has been provided in Service Rules, continuance of the probationer thereafter would ipso facto must be held to be a deemed confirmation which would certainly run contrary to Seven Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Samsher Singh (supra) and Constitution Bench decisions in the cases of Sukhbans Singh (supra), G.S. Ramaswamy (supra) and Akbar Ali Khan (supra)." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 117 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

G. S. Ramaswamy & Ors vs Inspector-General Of Police, Mysore on 21 January, 1964

But it cannot be said that merely because a maximum period of probation has been provided in Service Rules, continuance of the probationer thereafter would ipso facto must be held to be a deemed confirmation which would certainly run contrary to Seven Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Samsher Singh (supra) and Constitution Bench decisions in the cases of Sukhbans Singh (supra), G.S. Ramaswamy (supra) and Akbar Ali Khan (supra)." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 79 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966

But it cannot be said that merely because a maximum period of probation has been provided in Service Rules, continuance of the probationer thereafter would ipso facto must be held to be a deemed confirmation which would certainly run contrary to Seven Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Samsher Singh (supra) and Constitution Bench decisions in the cases of Sukhbans Singh (supra), G.S. Ramaswamy (supra) and Akbar Ali Khan (supra)." (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 103 - Full Document

M.K. Agarwal vs Gurgaon Gramin Bank And Ors. on 20 November, 1987

Likewise, other decision in the case of M.K. Agarwal Vs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank11, also places reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) in holding that where under the Service Rules, a maximum period of probation is provided but there is no provision as to what would happen at the end of the maximum permissible period of probation, there would be confirmation by implication.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 96 - Full Document
1   2 Next