Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Shri Kedar Nath Bahl vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 February, 1972
In the case of Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab, (1974) 3 SCC 21, a person applied for the post and he was appointed on a post which belonged to Punjab Provincial Service Class 1 and the post was temporarily sanctioned upto February 28, 1955 and was likely to continue thereafter. The post was extended from time to time upto November 4, 1958 when the same was discontinued and on the discontinuance, the appellant was reverted to his original post. When a writ application was filed before the High Court challenging the order of reversion, the same was dismissed and dismissal was upheld by Division Bench of the High Court in appeal as well as this Court on further appeal being brought to this Court. While dismissing the appeal, this Court laid down the law thus at Page 26 (of SCC) :- (AIR 1972 SC 873: 1972 Lab IC 433)
"The law on the point is now well settled. Where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or there is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. At the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer. ..........The terms of appointment do not show that the appellant would be automatically confirmed on the expiry of the first six months of probation nor is any rule brought to our notice which has the effect of confirming him in the post after six months of probation. The position of the appellant, therefore, till the abolition of the post on November 4, 1958, was that he continued to be a probationer and has no right to the post. It, therefore, follows that when the tenure of the post came to an end, he was automatically reverted to his original post as an Inspector on which he had the lien."
Kamal Nayan Mishra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 7 December, 2009
8. Learned counsel for the applicants reiterated the contentions and grounds made in the OA. He also produced judgments in support of his contention that since the applicant was confirmed, his services could not be terminated as has been done by the respondents because he has protection of Article 311 of Constitution. He has referred to the judgment in Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2010 II AD (SC) 52) and specific attention has been drawn to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment. The other judgment relied on was AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3234 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh thru.
1