Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a teacher appointed on probation under Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arabi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali was entitled to deemed confirmation on expiry of the probation period.
Analysis: The appointment was expressly on probation and subject to satisfactory performance for regularisation. Rule 26 provided for an initial probation of one year, extendable by one year, and empowered the Committee of Management to remove the candidate before completion of the probation period. The Court distinguished the rule from the provision considered in Dharam Singh, because the present rule did not create a maximum probation regime leading to automatic confirmation. The reasoning in Akbar Ali Khan and Kedar Nath Bahl was applied to hold that mere continuation after the probation period, without an express order of confirmation, does not by itself confer substantive appointment. The record also showed repeated adverse correspondence about unsatisfactory performance and extension of probation.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to deemed confirmation, and his probation did not automatically mature into regular service.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rule and appointment terms do not provide for automatic confirmation, a probationer continues as such until an express order of confirmation is made, even if allowed to remain in service after the probation period expires.