https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157525 Service regulations fixing a maximum probation period were treated as controlling, so continued probation could not be extended beyond that outer limit by relying on an unregulated confirmation test in the appointment letter. The text further notes that a State instrumentality must exercise discretion fairly under Articles 14 and 16, and that a refusal to grant a further opportunity may be arbitrary where relaxation has been granted in another case and relevant personal circumstances, including medical hardship, justify different treatment. The overall reasoning emphasises non-arbitrariness, equal treatment, and the legal effect of the statutory probation framework. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157525 Service regulations fixing a maximum probation period were treated as controlling, so continued probation could not be extended beyond that outer limit by relying on an unregulated confirmation test in the appointment letter. The text further notes that a State instrumentality must exercise discretion fairly under Articles 14 and 16, and that a refusal to grant a further opportunity may be arbitrary where relaxation has been granted in another case and relevant personal circumstances, including medical hardship, justify different treatment. The overall reasoning emphasises non-arbitrariness, equal treatment, and the legal effect of the statutory probation framework. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157525