Probation and deemed confirmation: absence of a formal confirmation order sustained discharge for unsuitability.

A probationer is not deemed confirmed merely because the prescribed or extended probation period has elapsed where the governing rules require a specific order of satisfactory completion. The probation rules here expressly excluded any presumption of automatic confirmation and allowed discharge for unsuitability without a formal disciplinary inquiry. Read with the judicial service recruitment rules, the absence of an express confirmation order and the negative wording of the probation provisions defeated any claim to deemed confirmation. The discharge order was a simple non-stigmatic termination of a probationer's service and was therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, who remained on probation for more than the prescribed period, was entitled to deemed confirmation and whether his discharge from service as unsuitable for the post was illegal.

Analysis: The governing probation rules required the appointing authority to consider the suitability of the probationer at the end of the prescribed or extended period and to issue a specific order of satisfactory completion before confirmation. The rules also expressly negatived any presumption of satisfactory completion merely because time had elapsed, and they permitted discharge from service for unsuitability without a formal disciplinary inquiry. The recruitment rules for judicial service were read harmoniously with the probation rules, and the absence of an express order of confirmation, coupled with the negative language of the probation rules, prevented any inference of automatic or deemed confirmation. The discharge order was found to be a simple order of discharge and not stigmatic.

Conclusion: The appellant was not deemed to have been confirmed, and the discharge from service as a probationer for unsuitability was valid. The challenge failed.

---