Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.10 seconds)
Central Coalfields Limited Through Its ... vs Rajan on 22 November, 2017 cites

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

Narain   Singh   Ahluwalia  v.  State   of   Punjab;  Accountant   General   Madhya   Pradesh,   Gwalior  v.  Beni   Prasad   Bhatnagar,  G.S.   Ramaswamy v. Inspector­General of Police, Mysore State. 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 79 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Veerappa R. Saboji And Anr on 6 September, 1979

consideration in the case of  State of Maharashtra  v.  Veerappa R.   Saboji and we find that even if the period of two years expires and  the probationer is allowed to continue after a period of two years,  automatic   confirmation   cannot   be   claimed   as   a   matter   of   right  because in terms of the Rules, work has to be satisfactory which is  a   prerequisite   or   precondition   for   confirmation   and,   therefore,  even if the probationer is allowed to continue beyond the period of  two   years   as   mentioned   in   the   Rule,   there   is   no   question   of  deemed confirmation. The language of the Rule itself excludes any  chance of giving deemed or automatic confirmation because the  confirmation is to be ordered if there is a vacancy and if the work  is found to be satisfactory. There is no question of confirmation  and, therefore, deemed confirmation, in the light of the language  of this Rule, is ruled out. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the  argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent on this  aspect has no merits and no leg to stand. The learned Single Judge  and the learned Judges of the Division Bench have rightly come to  the   conclusion   that   there   is   no   automatic   confirmation   on   the  expiry of the period of two years and on the expiry of the said  period of two years, the confirmation order can be passed only if  there is vacancy and the work is found to be satisfactory. The Rule  also   does   not   say   that   the   two   years'   period   of   probation,   as  11 mentioned in the Rule, is the maximum period of probation and  the probation cannot be extended beyond the period of two years.  We   are,   therefore,   of   the   opinion   that   there   is   no   question   of  automatic or deemed confirmation, as contended by the learned  counsel for the respondent. We, therefore, answer this issue in the  negative and against the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 96 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next