Maximum probation limits and fair relaxation: service rules prevail over an unregulated confirmation test, and discretion must remain non-arbitrary.

Service regulations fixing a maximum probation period were treated as controlling, so continued probation could not be extended beyond that outer limit by relying on an unregulated confirmation test in the appointment letter. The text further notes that a State instrumentality must exercise discretion fairly under Articles 14 and 16, and that a refusal to grant a further opportunity may be arbitrary where relaxation has been granted in another case and relevant personal circumstances, including medical hardship, justify different treatment. The overall reasoning emphasises non-arbitrariness, equal treatment, and the legal effect of the statutory probation framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the employee could be denied confirmation or continued probation on the basis of a confirmation test, and whether expiry of the maximum probation period resulted in deemed confirmation; (ii) Whether refusal to grant a further opportunity to clear the confirmation test, when a similarly placed employee had been relaxed, was discriminatory and arbitrary.

Issue (i): Whether the employee could be denied confirmation or continued probation on the basis of a confirmation test, and whether expiry of the maximum probation period resulted in deemed confirmation.

Analysis: The service regulations prescribed probation for two years, extendable by not more than one year, and termination was permissible only within the probationary period including the extended period. The regulations did not themselves prescribe any confirmation test, though the appointment letter did. The Court distinguished authorities on deemed confirmation and held that where the statutory scheme fixes a maximum probation period and conditions of continuation are governed by the regulations, the employer cannot treat the employee as remaining on probation beyond that outer limit. The earlier contrary view of the High Court was held not to state the correct law.

Conclusion: The employee could not be denied the benefit flowing from expiry of the maximum probationary period, and the finding of the High Court rejecting deemed confirmation was not sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to grant a further opportunity to clear the confirmation test, when a similarly placed employee had been relaxed, was discriminatory and arbitrary.

Analysis: The Bank, as a State instrumentality, was bound by Articles 14 and 16 to act fairly, reasonably and without arbitrariness. The Court held that equality is violated not only by unequal treatment of equals but also by equal treatment of unequals. The employee's pregnancy, miscarriages and related medical circumstances warranted different treatment, and the alleged policy limiting chances could not be applied mechanically or discriminatorily, especially when the authority had exercised relaxation in another case. The refusal to extend a real and effective opportunity was therefore found arbitrary.

Conclusion: The denial of an additional opportunity was discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The Bank's appeal failed, the employee's challenge succeeded, and she was directed to be reinstated with partial back wages and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service regulations prescribe a maximum probation period, continuation beyond that period cannot be defeated by an unregulated confirmation test, and a State instrumentality must exercise discretionary relaxation fairly and non-arbitrarily, especially where differential treatment is justified by relevant personal circumstances.

---