https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197380 The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that automatic regularization post-probation was not applicable without a specific order confirming satisfactory service. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. The case hinged on the interpretation of Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arabi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali regarding the deemed confirmation of service as an Assistant Teacher. The Appellant's termination was upheld based on the specified probation terms and the requirement for a specific confirmation order post-probation. en-us Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 10:05:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197380 The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that automatic regularization post-probation was not applicable without a specific order confirming satisfactory service. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. The case hinged on the interpretation of Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arabi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali regarding the deemed confirmation of service as an Assistant Teacher. The Appellant's termination was upheld based on the specified probation terms and the requirement for a specific confirmation order post-probation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197380