M.P. CHANDORIA versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1051 · Decided: 29-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'+ 
M.P. CHANDORIA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Madhya Pradesh Civil Se/Vices (General Condition of Se1vice) Rules, 
1961/Madhya Pradesh Govemment Se1va11ts (Tempormy and Quasi-Per-
C 
manent Se1Vice) Rules, 1960: 
Rules 8, 12/Rules 3, 3A-Seniority and confirmation of direct 
recmit~andidate joined se1vice on 15.2.1967-Hc was put on probation Gild 
he passed presC1ibed test 011 276.1972-Appoilltment confinned on regular 
basis oil 13.3.1973--Claim for confimwtion and se11i01ity w.e.f date of joi11i11g D 
duty--Held, 1nere passage of tbne of one year does not entitle a probationer 
to be a n1eniber of Service 011 successful conipletion of probation, appointing 
auth01ity should confinn the employee Oil a post available or grallt him a 
quasi-pennanent status and confimi hini as soon as post is available-No 
illegality committed by auth01ities ill givi11g seniority from date of passing the E 
test. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7046 of 
1996. 
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.92 of the Madhya F 
Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, in 0.A. No. 521 of 1988. 
Amlan Ghosh for the Appellant. 
S.K. Agnihotri, Sakesh Kumar, Mrs. Mridula Aggarwal for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 
ltl51 
H 
1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant was appointed as a direct recruit to the M.P. State 
Civil Service (Deputy Collector) on January 7, 1967 and joined the service 
on February 15, 1967. He was put on probation w.e.f. the said date. He 
ha<l passed the prescribed test on June 27, 1972. The Government had 
confirmed his appointment on regular basis on March 13, 1973. The 
B 
appellant has sought his confirmation w.e.f. his dale of joining the duty, 
.Niz., February 15, 1967 and claimed seniority from that date. The Tribunal 
has not granted the relief in 0.A. No. 521 of 1988 by order dated December 
17, 1992. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since he 
C has been appointed w.e.f. the date of joining of duty, his seniority should 
be reckoned from the date of his starting discharging duty of the post, viz., 
February 15, 1967. As he has not been discharged from service due to his 
failure to pass the test, though he passed his test at a later date, he must 
be deemed to have been confirmed w.e.f. the date of his joining the duty. 
D Therefore, the seniority is required to be conferred from that date. We find 
no force in the contention. Indisputably, the appellant is governed by the 
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 
1961 (for short, the 'Rules'). Clause 2 (g) defines 'service' to mean a service 
of group of posts in connection with the affairs of the state other than the 
Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service, organised as 
E such by the Government. Rule 4 classifies the post with which we are not 
concerned. Rule 8 prescribes probation. Rule 8(1) envisages that a person 
appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be . 
placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed. The appointing 
authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a 
F further period not exceeding one year. The probationer has to undergo 
such training and pass such departmental examination during the period 
of his probation as may be prescribed. Sub-rules (4) and (5) are not 
relevant and are omitted. Sub-rule (6) of Rufe 8 is relevant for the purpose 
of the case which envisages that on successful completion of probation and 
passing the prescribed departmental examination, if any, the probationer 
G shall, if there is a permanent post available, be confirmed in the service or 
post to which he has been appointed. Otherwise a certificate shall be issued 
in his favour by the appointing authority to the effect that the probationer 
would have been confirmed but for the non-availability of the permanent 
post. As soon as a permanent post becomes available, he will be confirmed. 
H Under Sub-rule (7), a probationer, who has neither been confirmed nor a 
M.P. CHANDOR!Av. STATE 
1053 
certificate issued in his favour under sub-rule (6), nor is discharged from A 
service under sub-rule (4), he shall be deemed to have been appointed as 
a temporary (Jovernn1cnt servan

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