HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. REGISTRAR AND ORS. versus SATYA NARAYAN JHAVAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 14-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. 
REGISTRAR AND ORS. 
v. 
SATYA NARAYAN JHAVAR 
B 
AUGUST 14, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service law : 
c 
., 
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and 
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 : Rule 24. 
Judicial Officers-Appointed on probation-Ru/es stipulated 4 years 
maximum period of probation-Such Judicial Officers found unsuitable for 
confirmation-Hence, their services terminated after expiry of 4 years period 
D of probation-Validity of-Held : Order of confirmation is a positive act on 
the part of the employer-Mere continuance of the probationer beyond 
maximum period of probation is not deemed confirmation-Hence, termination 
order valid. 
E 
The respondents were appointed as Civil Judges (Trainee), Class II, 
temporarily on officiating basis under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh 
Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) 
Rules, 1955 and they were required to undergo six months training before 
being appointed on probation for a period of two years. Under Rule 24 of the 
Rules - the initial probation period of two years could be extended for a 
F further period of two years, meaning thereby the maximum period of probation 
under the Rules was four years. However, the services of the respondents 
were terminated after expiry of four years period of probation. But the High 
Court set aside the termination order of the respondents. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that under Rule 24 of the 
G Rules, after expiry of maximum period of probation, a judicial officer could 
not be deemed to have been automatically confirmed and he could be confirmed 
only if his service was found to be satisfactory and he had passed the 
departmental examinations; and that since the Full Court of the High Court 
did not find the respondents fit for confirmation their services were rightly 
H terminated. 
532 
... 
HIGH COURT OF M.I'. ,, SA TY A NARAYAN JHAVAR 
533 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
HELD : 1. The question of confirmation can be considered at the end 
of the period of probation, and on such consideration if the probationer is 
found suitable by the appointing authority and he is found to have passed the 
prescribed departmental examination then the appointing Authority may 
issue an order of confirmation. It is too well settled that an order of B 
confirmation is a positive act on the part of the employer, which the employer 
is required to pass in accordance with the Rules governing the question of 
confirmation subject to a finding that the probationer is in fact fit for 
confirmation. It is not possible to hold that since a maximum period of 
probation has been provided under Rule 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial C 
Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955, 
at the end of that period the probationer must be deemed to be confirmed. 
[560-D, E, F[ 
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1974[ 2 SCC 831 and State of 
Punjab v. Dharam Singh, [1968[ 3 SCR I, followed. 
D 
Om Prakash Maurya v. UP. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation, 
(1986[ Supp. SCC 95; MK Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank, [1987[ Supp. 
SCC 643; State of Gujarat v. Akhi/esh CBhargav, [1987[ 4 SCC 482; 
Municipal Corporation v. Ashok Kumar Misra, (1991[ 3 SCC 325; Jai 
Kishan v. Commissioner of Police, [19951 Supp. 3 SCC 364; State of Punjab E 
v. Baldev Singh Khosla, [19961 9 SCC 190 and Chief General Manager, 
State Bank of India v. Bijoy Kumar Mishra, [1997[ 7 SCC 550, relied on. 
Shri Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab, [1974[ 3 SCC 21; Tarsem Lal 
Verma v. Union of India, [1997[ 9 SCC 243 and Wasim Beg v. State of UP,, 
(199813 sec 321, held inapplicable. 
F 
Dayaram Dayal v. State of MP,, [1997[ 7 SCC 443, overruled. 
2.1. Ordinarily a deemed confirmation of a probationer arises when 
the letter of appointment so stipulates or the Rules governing service condition 
so indicate. But it cannot be said that merely because a maximum period of G 
probation has been provided in the Service Rules, continuance of the 
probationer thereafter would ipso facto held to be a deemed confirmation. 
[561-D-E[ 
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, [ 19741 2 SCC 831; Sukhbans Singh 
v. State of Punjab, [196311SCR416; G.S Ramaswamy v. Inspector-General H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A of Police, 119641 6 SCR 279 and State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali Khan, J1966J 3 
SC

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.