SERVICE CAREER - Chief Secretary, Haryana

Probationmust be deemed to have held their posts under Rule 6(a) on probation in the first instance for one yearfrom October, 1957. The correctness of these findings is not disputeness of these cases, on thecompletion of three years, period of probation on October 1st, 1960, the respondent must be deemed tohave been confirmed in their appointments. The appellants attack this findings. They submit that in theabsence of formal order of confirmation the respondent must be deemed to have continued in theirposts as probationers. In the alternative, they submit that on completion of three year’s period ofprobation the respondent must be deemed to have been discharged from service and re-employed astemporary employees. We are unable to accept these contentions.3. This court has consistently held that when a first appointment or promotion is made onprobation for specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of theperiod without any specific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continued in his post as aprobationer only, in the absence of any indication to country in the original orders of appointment orpromotion or the service rules. In such a case an express order of confirmation is necessary to give theemployee a substantive right to the post, and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in thepost after the expiry of the specified period probation it is not possible to hold that he should bedeemed to have been confirmed. This view was taken in 1. Sukhbans Singh Versus The State ofPunjab,2. G.S. Ramaswamy versus The Inspector General of Police Mysore State, Banglore, 3.TheAccountant General, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Versus Beni Prasad Bahatnagar, 4. D.A. Lyall Versus theChief Conservator of Forests, U.P. And others and 5. State U.P. Versus Akbarali. The reason for thisconclusion is that where on the completion of the specific period of probation the employee is allowedto continue in the post without an order of confirmation the only possible view to taken in absence ofany thing to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules, is thatthe initial period of cases, the conditions of service of the employees permitted extension of theprobationary period for an indefinite time and there was no service rule forbidding its extensionbeyond a certain maximum period.4. The same view was taken in 6. Narain Singh Ahluwalia Versus State of Punjab and another.It was suggested before us that the service rules in that case provided for a maximum period ofprobation of two years beyond which the probationary period could not be extended. The Judgment inthat case does not refer to such a rule, nor does it appear from the judgment that before the appellantwas reverted to his substantive post, the maximum period of probation in the post to which he hadbeen promoted had expired. A references to the paper book in that case shows that in November, 1957,the appellant was promoted as superintendent and on June 26th, 1959 before the expiry of the maximumperiod of probation he has reverted to his substantive post. He thus continued to hold the post ofsuperintendent as a probationer when the order of reversion was passed.5. In the present case, Rule No. 6(3) forbids extension of the period of probation three years.Where as in the present case, the service rules fix certain period of time beyond which the probationaryperiod cannot be extended and an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation is allowedto continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation without an express orderof confirmation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that post as probationer by implication. Thereasons is that such an implication is negative by the service rule forbidding extension of the probationaryperiod beyond the maximum period fixed by it. In such a case it is permissible to draw the inference thatthe employee allowed to continue in the post on completion of the maximum period of probation hasbeen confirmed in the post by implication.11