Probation and confirmation under school service rules: one additional year only, and no deemed confirmation without an express order.

Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 permits probation for two years only, because the phrase "by another year" means one additional year and the minority-school proviso removes only the need for prior approval, not the time limit itself. Rule 105(2) also requires an express order of confirmation by the appointing authority; continuation in service after the probation period does not amount to deemed confirmation when the rule makes confirmation dependent on a positive act. The Court upheld the two-year probation limit, rejected deemed confirmation, and the finding on confirmation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the words "by another year" in Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 limit the total permissible probation to two years, including in the case of a minority school; and (ii) whether continuation in service beyond the probationary period results in deemed confirmation absent an order of confirmation under Rule 105(2).

Issue (i): Whether the words "by another year" in Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 limit the total permissible probation to two years, including in the case of a minority school?

Analysis: The expression "by another year" was construed in its ordinary and literal sense as meaning one additional year. The amending history of Rule 105 showed that the words were retained in the principal provision and that the proviso only exempted minority schools from obtaining prior approval of the Director for that one additional year. Reading the rule as allowing repeated extensions without limit would render the language otiose and defeat the object of probation. The proviso was held to carve out an exception from the main rule, not to create an unrestricted power of extension.

Conclusion: The maximum permissible probation under Rule 105(1) is two years, and the same limit applies to minority schools.

Issue (ii): Whether continuation in service beyond the probationary period results in deemed confirmation absent an order of confirmation under Rule 105(2)?

Analysis: Rule 105(2) makes satisfaction of the appointing authority a condition precedent to confirmation and contemplates confirmation only upon issuance of an order. The Court distinguished decisions where the rules did not require any further affirmative act, and applied the line of authority that where confirmation depends on an express act by the employer, mere continuation in service after expiry of probation does not amount to deemed confirmation. The probationer's continued service, even beyond the maximum period, could not override the express requirement of confirmation under the rule.

Conclusion: There is no deemed confirmation under Rule 105(2), and a probationer is confirmed only upon issuance of an order of confirmation by the appointing authority.

Final Conclusion: The High Court was upheld only on the limit of two years' probation, but its finding of deemed confirmation was set aside. The appeal was therefore allowed in part, with ex gratia compensation granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule fixes probation and permits only one additional year, the total probationary period cannot be extended beyond that limit; and where the rule makes confirmation contingent on a positive act by the appointing authority, continuation in service after probation does not create deemed confirmation.

---