Deemed confirmation on expiry of maximum probation barred termination without inquiry under the service rules.

Where a service rule fixes an initial probation period and a maximum extension period, probation cannot continue indefinitely and, absent an express saving clause, continuation beyond that ceiling ordinarily results in deemed confirmation. The Court applied that principle to Rule 24 of the M.P. Judicial Services Rules, holding that a judicial officer who remained in service beyond the maximum four-year probation period could not still be treated as a probationer. As no order negativing confirmation existed, termination of service without inquiry was unsustainable and the termination order was invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Rule 24 of the M.P. Judicial Services (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955, a judicial officer continuing beyond the maximum permissible probation period of four years must be deemed to have been confirmed, and whether termination of service thereafter without inquiry was valid.

Analysis: Rule 24 prescribed an initial probation of two years and permitted extension only up to a further two years. The provision fixing a maximum period for probation indicated that probation could not be continued indefinitely and, in the absence of any special rule or appointment condition negativing that consequence, continuation beyond the maximum period gave rise to deemed confirmation. The line of decisions holding that mere expiry of probation does not amount to confirmation was distinguished because those cases did not involve a rule fixing a maximum probationary ceiling, or contained special provisions keeping the probationary status alive. The rule applicable here contained no such saving clause. As the appellant had continued beyond four years without an order of confirmation, his services could not be treated as those of a continuing probationer, and termination without inquiry could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellant was deemed to have been confirmed on expiry of the maximum probation period and the termination order was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule fixes both an initial probation period and a maximum period beyond which probation cannot be extended, continuation of the employee beyond that maximum without an order of confirmation ordinarily results in deemed confirmation unless the rule expressly provides otherwise.

---