Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Mervyn Coutindo & Ors vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay & Ors on 14 February, 1966
This Court while saying in Subraman's case (supra) that
quota rule has to be adhered to and enforced at the time of
initial recruitment re-affirmed the observation in Mervyn
Coutindo's case (supra) that there is no inherent invalidity
in introduction of quota system and to work it out by rule
of rotation. When it is said that the confirmation shall
follow the quota rule it is in terms being stated that the
rotational system should be followed at the time of
confirmation so as to make quota rule effective and
seniority rule reasonable because all the three are
interlinked.
Sukhbans Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 April, 1962
It was contended on behalf of the direct recruits that
once a specific period of probation is fixed and a fetter is
put on the power of the Government to extend probation only
by a specific period, at the end of such extended period
either the service of the direct recruit is to be dispensed
with on the ground that he was unfit for appointment or if
he is continued thereafter he must be deemed to have been
confirmed and the date next after the day of expiry of his
ordinary or
592
extended period of probation would be the date of his
confirmation. This Court has consistently held that when a
first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a
specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in
the post after the expiry of the period without any specific
order of confirmation he should be deemed to continue in his
post as a probationer only in the absence of any
communication to the contrary in the original order of
appointment or promotion or the Service Rules. In such a
case an express order of confirmation is necessary to give
the employee a substantive right to the post and from the
mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after
the expiry of the specific period of probation it is not
possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been
confirmed. This view was taken in Sukhbans Singh v. State of
Punjab(1); G. S. Ramaswamy v. The Inspector General of
Police, Mysore State, Bangalore(2); and State of U. P. v.
Akbar Ali(3). This view was founded up on the relevant rules
which permitted extension of the probationary period for an
indefinite time. In fact there was no negative rule in these
cases prohibiting the Government from extending the
probationary period beyond a certain maximum period.
However, where the rules provide for a fixed period of
probation with a power in the Government to extend it up to
a specific period and not any unlimited period, either by
express provision or by necessary implication, at the end of
such specified period beyond which the Government had no
power to extend the probation, the probationer if he
continues beyond that period, should be deemed to have been
confirmed in the post.
G. S. Ramaswamy & Ors vs Inspector-General Of Police, Mysore on 21 January, 1964
It was contended on behalf of the direct recruits that
once a specific period of probation is fixed and a fetter is
put on the power of the Government to extend probation only
by a specific period, at the end of such extended period
either the service of the direct recruit is to be dispensed
with on the ground that he was unfit for appointment or if
he is continued thereafter he must be deemed to have been
confirmed and the date next after the day of expiry of his
ordinary or
592
extended period of probation would be the date of his
confirmation. This Court has consistently held that when a
first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a
specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in
the post after the expiry of the period without any specific
order of confirmation he should be deemed to continue in his
post as a probationer only in the absence of any
communication to the contrary in the original order of
appointment or promotion or the Service Rules. In such a
case an express order of confirmation is necessary to give
the employee a substantive right to the post and from the
mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after
the expiry of the specific period of probation it is not
possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been
confirmed. This view was taken in Sukhbans Singh v. State of
Punjab(1); G. S. Ramaswamy v. The Inspector General of
Police, Mysore State, Bangalore(2); and State of U. P. v.
Akbar Ali(3). This view was founded up on the relevant rules
which permitted extension of the probationary period for an
indefinite time. In fact there was no negative rule in these
cases prohibiting the Government from extending the
probationary period beyond a certain maximum period.
However, where the rules provide for a fixed period of
probation with a power in the Government to extend it up to
a specific period and not any unlimited period, either by
express provision or by necessary implication, at the end of
such specified period beyond which the Government had no
power to extend the probation, the probationer if he
continues beyond that period, should be deemed to have been
confirmed in the post.
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
In this background in S. B.
Patwardhan's case (supra) this Court held that if the
promotees are treated with an evil eye and an unequal hand
in the matter of seniority as was done under rule 8(iii),
the rule would suffer from the vice of unreasonableness and
would offend Article 16 and it was actually struck down. An
exactly identical situation would follow here if quota rule
is applied at the stage of initial recruitment and wholly
ignored at the time of confirmation because in that event
while direct recruits will get confirmation automatically,
the promotees would hang out for years as has happened in
the case of respondents 1 and 2 and if they are not
confirmed they would never get seniority and their chances
of being considered for promotion to the higher post would
be wholly jeopardised. To avoid this utterly unconsciounable
outcome the construction we have put on rule 8 would be in
consonance with justice and reason.
State Of Punjab vs Dharam Singh on 2 February, 1968
This Court in State of Punjab v.
Dharam Singh(4); after taking into consideration rule 6(3)
of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre)
Class III Rules, 1961, which provided for either dispensing
with the services of the person appointed to the post on
probation if his work was found to be unsatisfactory or to
extend the period of probation for such period as may be
deemed fit or revert him to his former post if he was
promoted from some lower post, provided that the total
period of probation including the extensions if any, shall
not exceed three years, held that the Service Rules fixed a
certain period of time beyond which the probationary period
cannot be extended and if an employee appointed or promoted
to a post is allowed to continue in that post after
completion of the maximum period of probation without an
express order of confirmation he cannot be deemed to
continue in that post as a probationer by implication. In
such a case the Court held it is permissible to
593
draw an inference that the employee allowed to continue in
the post on completion of the maximum period of probation
has been confirmed in the post by implication. Rule 8 of the
Service Rules prescribes the period of probation of two
years and the proviso confers power to extend the period of
probation by not beyond one year meaning thereby that in any
case the Government would not have the power to extend the
period of probation beyond a period of three years. In this
situation the ratio in Dharam Singh's case (supra) would
mutatis mutandis apply and it will have to be held that the
direct recruit who completed the period of probation of two
years and in the absence of an extension of probationary
period, would be deemed to be confirmed by necessary
implication. Respondent 5 to 8 direct recruits have
accordingly been confirmed on expiry of the period of
probation of two years. Now if seniority is to be reckoned
from the date of confirmation and if promotees are not
confirmed for years together in some cases, to wit,
respondents 1 and 2 who were promotees of February and
January, 1961 respectively, were not confirmed till they
filed the writ petition in 1972 while direct recruits who
came much later got confirmed and ipso facto became senior
to the promotees, if quota rule is only applied, as is
contended on behalf of the appellants and the State of
Punjab, at the time of initial recruitment, this undesirable
result is wholly unavoidable.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akbar Ali Khan on 9 March, 1966
It was contended on behalf of the direct recruits that
once a specific period of probation is fixed and a fetter is
put on the power of the Government to extend probation only
by a specific period, at the end of such extended period
either the service of the direct recruit is to be dispensed
with on the ground that he was unfit for appointment or if
he is continued thereafter he must be deemed to have been
confirmed and the date next after the day of expiry of his
ordinary or
592
extended period of probation would be the date of his
confirmation. This Court has consistently held that when a
first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a
specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in
the post after the expiry of the period without any specific
order of confirmation he should be deemed to continue in his
post as a probationer only in the absence of any
communication to the contrary in the original order of
appointment or promotion or the Service Rules. In such a
case an express order of confirmation is necessary to give
the employee a substantive right to the post and from the
mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after
the expiry of the specific period of probation it is not
possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been
confirmed. This view was taken in Sukhbans Singh v. State of
Punjab(1); G. S. Ramaswamy v. The Inspector General of
Police, Mysore State, Bangalore(2); and State of U. P. v.
Akbar Ali(3). This view was founded up on the relevant rules
which permitted extension of the probationary period for an
indefinite time. In fact there was no negative rule in these
cases prohibiting the Government from extending the
probationary period beyond a certain maximum period.
However, where the rules provide for a fixed period of
probation with a power in the Government to extend it up to
a specific period and not any unlimited period, either by
express provision or by necessary implication, at the end of
such specified period beyond which the Government had no
power to extend the probation, the probationer if he
continues beyond that period, should be deemed to have been
confirmed in the post.
1