Probation expiry does not confer confirmation; punitive reversion of a probationer must comply with Article 311(2).

Expiry of probation did not by itself confer confirmation or a right to the higher post under the Punjab Civil Services rules; Rule 24 only made the probationer eligible for substantive appointment, so the appellant remained a probationer. The reversion from Extra Assistant Commissioner to Tehsildar was, however, found to be punitive in substance because it followed an inquiry, exoneration, later hostility, and an unexplained reversal despite a satisfactory record. As no opportunity to show cause was given, Article 311(2) was violated and the reversion order was quashed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a probationer in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) became confirmed merely because the period of probation had expired without express extension. (ii) Whether the appellant's reversion from Extra Assistant Commissioner to Tehsildar was a punitive order attracting the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether a probationer in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) became confirmed merely because the period of probation had expired without express extension.

Analysis: The rules governing the service did not provide for automatic absorption into a substantive permanent post on expiry of probation. Rule 24 only made the probationer qualified for substantive permanent appointment, while Rules 23 and 24 together showed that the probationer continued in that status unless reverted or absorbed. The expiry of the probationary period, by itself, did not create a legal right to confirmation.

Conclusion: The appellant was not confirmed merely by lapse of the probationary period and remained a probationer.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's reversion from Extra Assistant Commissioner to Tehsildar was a punitive order attracting the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Although a probationer can ordinarily be reverted for unsuitability, the surrounding circumstances showed a prior inquiry, exoneration, subsequent hostility, and an unexplained reversion followed later by a warning referring to communalism or intrigue. In the light of the appellant's satisfactory work record, the reversion was not made in the ordinary course but was intended to punish alleged misconduct. Since no opportunity to show cause was given, the constitutional safeguard was not complied with.

Conclusion: The reversion was punitive and illegal for breach of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in establishing that the impugned reversion could not stand, and the order reverting him was quashed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Expiry of a probationary period does not by itself confer confirmation or a right to the higher post, but where reversion of a probationer is in substance inflicted as punishment for misconduct, Article 311(2) must be complied with.

---