1966 (3) TMI 86 - SC - Indian Laws

Confirmation after Probation: Specific Act Required, Failure to Meet Standards Leads to Termination

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. REGISTRAR & ORS. Versus SATYA NARAYAN JHAVAR

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. REGISTRAR & ORS. Versus SATYA NARAYAN JHAVAR - (2001) 7 SCC 161 Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondents were deemed confirmed after the expiry of the maximum period of probation.2. Interpretation of Rule 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955.3. Validity of the termination orders of the respondents.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the respondents were deemed confirmed after the expiry of the maximum period of probation:The respondents, except those in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11675 and 11704 of 2000, were appointed as Civil Judges (Trainee), Class II, on different dates temporarily on officiating basis upon the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission. They were required to undergo six months training before being appointed on probation for two years, extendable to a maximum of four years. Their cases for confirmation were considered within the four-year period but were deferred due to unsatisfactory performance. Eventually, their services were terminated after the expiry of the probation period. The respondents challenged these termination orders, arguing that they were deemed confirmed after the maximum probation period expired.2. Interpretation of Rule 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955:Rule 24(1) of the Rules stipulates that every candidate appointed to the cadre shall undergo training for six months before being appointed on probation for two years, extendable up to a maximum of four years. Confirmation is subject to fitness for confirmation and passing departmental examinations. Rule 24(3) states that if a probationer has not passed the prescribed departmental examinations or is otherwise unsuitable for the service, the Governor may dispense with his services at any time thereafter. The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 24 requires a specific act of confirmation and does not imply automatic confirmation after the maximum probation period. The Court noted that the interpretation in the case of Dayaram Dayal vs. State of M.P. & Anr., which suggested deemed confirmation after the maximum probation period, was incorrect.3. Validity of the termination orders of the respondents:The Supreme Court held that the Full Court of the High Court had considered the respondents' cases for confirmation during their probation period but found them unsuitable. Instead of terminating their services immediately, the Full Court deferred their cases to give them further opportunities to improve. Despite these opportunities, the respondents failed to meet the required standards, leading to the termination of their services. The Court concluded that mere continuance of the respondents after the maximum probation period did not confer deemed confirmation status. The termination orders were valid as they were based on the respondents' unsuitability for confirmation, as determined by the Full Court.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and all writ applications were dismissed. The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 24 does not provide for deemed confirmation after the expiry of the maximum probation period and requires a specific act of confirmation based on the probationer's fitness and performance. The termination orders were upheld as they were made following the proper assessment of the respondents' suitability for confirmation.