Supreme Court of IndiaState Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh Khosla on 19 April, 1996Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 2093, JT 1996 (5) 78, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2093, 1996 (9) SCC 190, 1996 AIR SCW 2518, 1996 LAB. I. C. 1739, (1996) 5 JT 78 (SC), 1996 (2) UJ (SC) 206, 1996 (5) JT 78, (1996) 73 FACLR 1568, (1996) 2 LANDLR 561, (1996) 2 CURLR 15, (1996) 4 SERVLR 37, (1996) 3 SCT 337, 1996 SCC (L&S) 1210Author:K. RamaswamyBench:K. RamaswamyPETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALDEV SINGH KHOSLA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19/04/1996

BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:
 1996 AIR 2093		  JT 1996 (5)	 78
 1996 SCALE  (4)452


ACT:



HEADNOTE:



JUDGMENT:O R D E R
     Leave granted.This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of
the High  Court of  Punjab &  Haryana made  on September 14,
1994 in	 CWP No.  11874. The  respondent was  promoted as an
Assistant  Registrar   of  the	 Cooperative  Societies	  by
proceedings dated March 21,1990. Rule 10 of the Punjab State
Co- operative  Service (Class  II) Rules,  1958 enjoins that
the promotee or direct recruit would be put on probation for
a period of two years provided that the Government may allow
service rendered  on a	post on an identical cadre or in the
higher post  in another department to count for probation in
the said service. Rule 10 reads as under:"10. Probation.  All members of the
     service shall on appointment remain
     on probation  in the first instance
     for a period of two years, provided
     that Govt. an identical cadre or in
     the   higher    post   in	 another
     department to  count for  probation
     in the post in the service.2. Provided  further  that	 in  the
     case of  members promoted	from the
     State Service  Class  III	continue
     officiating of  four months or over
     shall be reckoned as a period spent
     on probation.3. If  the work  or conduct  of any
     candidates	 or  member  during  the
     period of	training or probation in
     the  opinion   of	Government   not
     satisfactory they may dispense with
     his  service,   if	 he   has   been
     recruited by  direct appointment or
     may reverr	 him to	 his former post
     if	 he   has  been	  recruited   by
     promotion or  by transfer.	 On  the
     conclusion	  of   the   period   of
     probation of  any	members	 of  the
     service,	government,    may,   if
     vacancy exists,  confirm him in his
     appointment; if his work or conduct
     has,    in	   it	 opinion    been
     satisfactory may  extend his period
     of probation  by such  period as it
     may think	fit and	 thereafter pass
     such orders as it could have passed
     on the  expiry of	the first period
     of	 probation,  provided  that  the
     total    period	of    probation,
     including	extension,   shall   not
     exceed three years in any case."Though  respondent	  had  completed  his  probation  on
November 25, 1992, a however, his probation was extended, in
the meanwhile  form time  to time.  On September 15, 1993, a
show cause  notice was issued to him as to why he should not
be reverted  to the  substantive cadre.	 On consideration of
the reply  to show  cause notice, order came to be passed on
February 11, 1994 reverting him to the substantive post from
which he was promoted. Consequently, he filed writ petition.
The High  Court has  allowed the  writ petition holding that
since he was not reverted before expiry	 of 3 years, he must
be deemed  to have  been confirmed  and that, therefore, the
reversion order	 was held bad in law. The High Court did not
express any  opinion on	 the adverse  remarks commented upon
the performance	 of the	 respondent. Thus,  this  appeal  by
special leave.Learned counsel  for the respondent contends that since
the rule  provides an  outer limit  of three  years, if	 the
respondent had not been reverted within that period, he must
be deemed  to have  been confirmed  and	 the  High  Court  ,
therefore, was	right in concluding that the respondent is a
confirmed  probationer.	  We  do   not	find  force  in	 the
contention. Sub-rule  (3) of  Rule 10 clearly envisages that
on conclusion  of the  period of  probation of any member of
the service  the Government  may, if vacancy exists, confirm
him in	his appointment;  if his work or conduct has, in its
opinion, not  been satisfactory, it may extend his period of
probation by  such period as it may think fit and thereafter
pass such  orders as could have been passed on the expiry of
his period  of probation  . It	would thus  be seen that the
outer limit  of three  years provided  under the rules is an
enabling provision  to allow  the probationer to continue in
service without	 being reverted	 or discharged	from service
for  failure   to  satisfactorily  complete  the  period  of
probation, but	that would not mean that the probationer, on
expiry of  three years'	 period, must be deemed to have been
confirmed. The	rule itself  envisages a  positive order  of
confirmation. So  long as  the order  of confirmation is not
made, even  after expiry  of probation,	 the probationer may
continue and  remain in	 service, but  by  allowing  him  to
remain in  service it  cannot be  concluded that  he must be
deemed to have been confirmed.The rule  also envisages  that  during  the  period  of
probation, the	appointing  authority  is  required  to	 the
performance of	the work  done by  the	probationer  to	 the
satisfaction of	 the appointing	 authority. It	is seen that
for the	 year 1991  and 1992 there were adverse remarks made
upon the  performance of  the respondent.  Obvious for	that
reason, his  confirmation was  not made.  On the other hand,
the period  of probation was further extended as admitted by
the respondent.	 Under these  circumstances,  he  cannot  be
deemed	to   have  been	  confirmed.  However,	 since	 the
authorities had	 extended the  period of probation and given
him chance  to improve his performance during the year 1993-
94, that  period was  not taken	 into  consideration  before
reverting  the	 respondent  from  service.  The  appointing
authority is,  therefore, directed to consider whether he is
fit to be confirmed, on the basis of his performance for the
subsequent period  and in case it consider whether he is fit
to be  confirmed, on  the basis	 of his	 performance for the
subsequent period  and in  case it  considers that he may be
confirmed, it  would be	 open to  them to  pass	 appropriate
orders. In case, even after consideration of the performance
for the	 year 1993-94, his record is not found satisfactory,
appropriate orders  may be  passed and	communicated to	 the
respondents.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.