Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)State Of Punjab vs Dharam Singh on 2 February, 1968
7. As regards the cases where the rules provide for a maximum period of
probation and no order of confirmation is passed and the probationer is allowed to
continue even after completion of the maximum period of probation, there have
been different lines of thinking in decisions of the Apex Court. The view taken by
the Apex Court in Dharam Singh (supra) and Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P.
Coop. Sugar Factories' Federation: (1986) Supp. SCC 95 was that if the Rules
prescribe a maximum period of probation and the employer permits the employee
to continue in service even after expiry of that period, it may be possible for the
Court to infer deemed confirmation of the employee.
Pratap Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Anr on 3 September, 1979
In Pratap Singh v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.: AIR 1980 SC 57, Supreme Court again held
that an employee cannot be deemed to be confirmed even at the end of the period
for which he was put on probation unless an order of confirmation is expressly
issued.
Chandra Prakash Shahi vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 25 April, 2000
In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of UP and Others: AIR 2000 SC
1706, the petitioner was on probation for two years. The regulations governing his
service conditions did not provide for any maximum period beyond which the
period of probation could not be extended. Supreme Court held that in absence of
such a prohibition in the Rules, the appellant did not acquire the status of a
permanent employee even on successful completion of two years‟ probation period.
Om Prakash Maurya vs U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories ... on 9 May, 1986
7. As regards the cases where the rules provide for a maximum period of
probation and no order of confirmation is passed and the probationer is allowed to
continue even after completion of the maximum period of probation, there have
been different lines of thinking in decisions of the Apex Court. The view taken by
the Apex Court in Dharam Singh (supra) and Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P.
Coop. Sugar Factories' Federation: (1986) Supp. SCC 95 was that if the Rules
prescribe a maximum period of probation and the employer permits the employee
to continue in service even after expiry of that period, it may be possible for the
Court to infer deemed confirmation of the employee.
Municipal Corporation, Raipur vs Ashok Kumar Misra on 16 April, 1991
In Municipal Corporation
Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra: (1991) II LLJ 343 (SC), the relevant Service
Rules required, besides successful completion of probation, passing of a
departmental test as an essential pre-condition for confirmation. It was held that
mere expiry of the period of probation did not automatically have the effect of
deemed confirmation.
The Chief General Manager,State Bank Of ... vs Shri Bijoy Kumar Mishra on 24 September, 1997
In Chief General Manager, State Bank of India v. Bijoy
Kumar Mishra: (1997) 7 SCC 550 Supreme Court again held that deemed
confirmation can be inferred from the positive act of employer in permitting the
employee to continue to work on the post even after completion of the maximum
period of probation permitted under the service rules.
Shri Kedar Nath Bahl vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 February, 1972
In Kedar Nath Bahl v. The
W.P(C 58/2011 Page 7 of 22
State of Punjab And Others: AIR 1972 SC 873, Supreme Court was of the view
that unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that the confirmation would
automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or there is a specific Rule to
that effect, the expiration of the probation period does not necessarily lead to
confirmation and at the end of the period of probation, an order confirming the
officer is required to be passed.
Mohd. Salman vs Committee Of Management & Ors on 8 September, 2011
Somewhat similar view was taken in Mohd.
Salman v. Committee of Management And Others: 2011 (10) Scale 251.
Khazia Mohammed Muzammil vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 8 July, 2010
These
somewhat different lines of thought were noticed by Supreme Court in Khazia
Mohammed Muzammil v. The State of Karnataka: (2010) 8 SCC 155 and the
legal proposition in the matter was enunciated as follows: