Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.80 seconds)

Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962

It has further been urged on the basis of r. 486 that as the petitioners had worked for more than two years on probation, they became automatically confirmed under the said rule, and reliance is placed on the following sentence in r. 486, namely, "promoted officers will be confirmed at the end of their probationary period if they have given satisfaction". The law on the question has been settled by this Court in Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab(1). It has been held in that case that a probationer cannot after the expiry of the probationary period automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of a service, unless of course the rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a result. Therefore even though a probationer may have continued to act in the post to which he is appointed on probation for more than the initial 'period of probation, he cannot become a permanent servant merely because of efflux of time, unless the Rules of service which govern him specifically lay down that the probationer will be automati- cally confirmed after the initial period of probation is over. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners before us that the part of r. 486 (which we have set out above) expressly provides for automatic confirmation after the period of probation is over. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. It is true that the words used in the sentence set out above are not that promoted officers will be eligible or qualified for promotion at the end of their probationary period which are the words to be often found in the rules in such cases; even so, though this part of r. 486 says that "promoted officers will be confirmed at the end of their probationary period", it is qualified by the words "if they have given satisfaction". Clearly therefore the rule does not contemplate automatic confirmation after the probationary period of two years, for a promoted officer can only be confirmed under this rule if he has given satisfaction. This condition of giving satisfaction must be fulfilled before a promoted officer can be confirmed under this rule and this condition obviously means that the authority competent to confirm him must pass an order to the effect that the probationay officer has given satisfaction and is therefore confirmed. The petitioners therefore cannot (1) A.I.R. 1962. S.C. 1711.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 117 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1