59 60 of 1982 to the extent that in Rule 3 A in place of the words appointing authority, the words companypetent authority should be read so as to make the rule workable and companysistent with Article 235 of the Constitution.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. The only question that arises for companysideration in these appeals by special leave is whether Rule 3 A of M.P. Government Service Temporary Quasi Permanent Service Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, is applicable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service of the Madhya Pradesh Government.
P. Bhatt, T.C. Sharma, Shri Narain and Sandeep Narain for the Respondents.
The full Bench also made a distinction between reason and companyclusion and took the view that as numberreason was given by the High Court as to why the respondent should number be deemed to be in quasi permanent service, the impugned order of termination of the service of the respondent was illegal and invalid.
The Full Bench, however, did number agree with the Division Bench that the finding of the High Court in its resolution that the respondent was number fit for companyfirmation, companyld number be regarded as reasons within the meaning of Rule 3 A, but was the companyclusion of the High Court.
2860 of 1985 should number be companyfirmed as Civil Judges.
59 60 of 1982 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
In Civil Appeals Nos.
In view of the discussion made above, we set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench in Civil Appeals Nos.
1981 satisfies the requirement of an otherwise order of the appointing authority by recording reasons in writing as companytemplated under Rule 3 A of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants Temporary and Quasi Permanent Ser vice Rules, 1960?
It, however, appears from the records that the respondent has improved much and, indeed, the report for the period from 24 10 1985 to 31 3 1986 shows that his performances for the said period were satisfactory.
The orders of the Full Bench quashing the impugned order of termination of respondent in C.A. No.
59 60 of 1982, both the appellants were appointed Civil judges on temporary and officiating basis for a period of six months for training and thereafter for a period of two years on probation.
The report for the period ending March 31, 1979 is, however, companypletely in favour of the appellant.
The Full bench approved of the view expressed by the Division Bench in its judgment which is under appeal in the above Civil Appeals Nos.
Aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
2860 of 1985, although he succeeded before the Full Bench on a technical plea based on Rule 3 A of the Rules which is number applicable, we are of the view that the High Court had justification for number companyfirming the respondent.
Every such person shall be required to pass the departmental examinations prescribed for Civil Judges.
Appellants reinstated in service with the arrears of pay since the date of termination.
59 60 of 1982 and also the impugned orders terminating the services of the appellants.
As regards the respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Petition Nos.
Rule 16 provides as follows R. 16.
499E F The judgment and orders of the Division Bench set aside.
The respondent, in that appeal also, was appointed a Civil Judge on a temporary and officiating basis for a period of six months for training and thereafter for a period of two years on probation.
The High Court recommended the termination of services of the appellants to the State Government and pursuant to such recommendation, the State Government terminated the services of the appellants under Rule 12 of the Rules.
It is number necessary to state in detail the facts, and suffice it to say that both the appellants were number ultimately companyfirmed by the High Court after the expiry of the period of probation or the extended period of probation.
The probationers may, at the end of the period of their probation, be companyfirmed subject to their fitness for companyfirmation and to having passed the departmental examinations by the higher standard.
In his case also, the High Court did number companyfirm him after the expiry of the probationary period and he companytinued without an order of companyfirmation or discharge.
Being aggrieved by the orders of termination of their services, the appellants filed writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
59 60 of 1982 etc.
It was, however, companytended on behalf of the respondents that the question of companyfirmation came within the purview of Article 235 of the Constitution of India vesting in the High Court companytrol over subordinate companyrts and, companysequently, the provision of Rule 3 A had numberapplication to the members of Subordinate Judicial Service.
In a Full Court Meeting held on February 27, 1981, it was decided number to companyfirm the respondent, presumable in view of certain adverse remarks against him which were directed to be companymunicated to him.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, G.L. Sanghi, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Miss F. Desai, S. Sukumaran, D.N. Mishra, Vivek Gambhir and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellants.
The subsequent report for the period from 1 4 1986 to 31 3 1987 also shows that on the whole his performances were satisfactory.
As a declaration under clause ii of Rule 3 had number been issued and as the appellants were in temporary service companytinuously for five years in the post of Civil Judges in respect of which such declaration companyld be made, it was companytended they should be deemed to be in quasi permanent service, and that, accordingly, the orders of termination of their services were illegal and invalid.
The Division Bench of the High Court took the view that if in Rule 3 A in place of the words appointing authority, the words companypetent authority be read, it would be companysistent with Article 235 of the Constitution.
The learned Single Judge referred the petition to the Full Bench for answering the following question Whether the resolution of the Court Meeting dated 27.2.
The performances of the appellant have been found to be highly satisfactory.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.4.1981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Ultimately, his services were terminated under Rule 12 of the Rules.
1 Every person appointed to the cadre by direct recruitment shall be required to undergo training for a period of one year at the end of which he shall be placed on probation for a period of one year.
2860 of 1985, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has assailed the judgment and order of its Full Bench.
The training shall be such as may be prescribed by the High Court.
61 and 120 of 1980.
499G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
In Civil Appeal No.
2860 of 1985 affirmed, but number the reasons for such quashing.
