KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. versus S. MANJUNATH ETC.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 24-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. 
v. 
S. MANWNATH ETC. 
APRIL 24, 2000 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND DORAISWAMYRAru, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation-Service Regulations--
C . Regulation 11 Clause (3), (6) & (8)-Termination of service-After completion 
of probation period-An implicit term in the scheme of Service Regulation, that 
on the expiry of the period of probation beyond the maximum term provided 
therein, an employee would be deemed to have been confirmed-Plea, that 
notwithstanding the completion of the period of probation, in view of the 
D 
regulation no automatic confirmation can be claimed-Held, services not to be 
terminated after maximum period of probation-The service cannot be put an 
end to except by means of departmental disciplinary proceedings. 
Respondents were placed on probation after appointment to their 
respective posts for a period of two years. Their services were terminated, 
E 
after the probation period of two years was completed by them. 
F 
G 
H 
The respondents filed writ petitions before High Court, challenging 
their respective termination orders. The writ petitions were allowed by 
Single Judge holding that there was an implicit term in the Scheme of 
Regulation governing their services that on the expiry of the period of 
probation beyond the maximum term provided therein, an employee would 
be deemed to have been confirmed inasmuch as the Corporation cannot 
terminate their services on the expiry of such period. The judgment of the 
Single Judge was confirmed by Division Bench. 
In appeal to this court, the appellants contended that notwithstand-
ing the completion of the period of probation, having regard to the stipula-
tion in Regulation 11 Clause (8) no automatic confirmation or status of a 
'permanent employee' could be claimed to have been acquired by the 
respondents; and relying on Regulation 11(6) further contended that a 
specific order of confirmation by the competent authority is a condition 
234 
+ 
.. 
K.S.R.T.C. v. S. MANJUNATH 
235 
precedent for claiming confirmation in service on completion of the proba-
A 
ti on. 
Dismissing the appeal1 this Court 
HELD : 1. The services of the respondents could not be put an end to 
except by means of departmental disciplinary proceedings, after following 
the mandatory requirements of law. Therefore, the High Court cannot be 
faulted for interfering with the orders of termination of the services of the 
respondents. [244-D-E] 
. 2.1. Regulation H deals with two different categories of cases - one 
about the "probation" of an appointee other than by way of promotion and 
the other relating to "officiation" of a person appointed on promotion. The 
similarity of purpose and identity of object apart, of such provision, there is 
an obvious difference and positive distinction disclosed in the manner they 
have to be actually dealt with. The deliberate use of two different phraseology 
"probation" and "officiation" cannot be ignored obliterating the substantial 
variation in the method of handling such categories of persons envisaged by 
the Regulations. The mere fact that a reference is made to Clause (3) also 
in the later part of Clause (8) of the Regulation could not be used to apply 
all the provisions relating to the category of appointees on "officiation" 
to the other category of appointees on ''probation''. The stipulation 
in Clause (8) of the Regulation when making the passing of an order, 
a condition precedent for satisfactory completion specifically refers 
only to the completion of''period of officiation". Similarly, notwithstanding 
a reference made to Clause (3) alongside Clause (4), in stipulating 
1 
the consequences of any delay in making an order declaring satisfactory 
completion, the reference is confined only to deemed satisfaction 
and completion of ''the period of officiation", and not of probation. Clause 
(9) of the Regulation insofar as it provides for confirmation as a sequel 
to declaration, only deals with a promotee to a temporary post and not of 
the other category. [293-G-H; 244-A-C] 
2.2. While dealing with the termination of a candidate, not found suit-
able for the post, clause (3) of the Regulation envisages such termination 
being made, at any time "within the period of probation" and not at any time 
after the completion of such maximum period of probation. [244-C-D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Dayaram Dayal v. State of M.P. & Anr., [1997] 7 SCC 443 a

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