MIR MOHAMMAD KHASIM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 26-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
MIR MOHAMMAD KHAS!M 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 26, 2004 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
!.., 
Service Law: 
Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966/Andhra Pradesh State and c 
Subordinate Service Rules. 
Rr. 6(b) and 7(a) and (e)/r.26-Probation-Completion of-Deemed 
confirmation-Police Officer in State of Andhra Pradesh-Promoted to Deputy 
Superintendent of Police Category-2-Placed on probation and required to 
pass tests-Officer passed the tests-By an order Officer declared to have D 
satisfactorily completed the probation in relaxation of r. 7(e)-Held, officer 
having passed the required tests and a declaration having been made 1hat he 
.... 
has satisfactorily completed the period of probation, he would be deemed to 
have been confirmed. 
The appellant was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police E 
Category-2 in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 1.3.1982. He was 
placed on probation. He passed the required tests meant for the promotee 
officers, held in 1986. By an order issued on 6.10.1989 the appellant was 
declared to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation with effect 
from 27.1.1987 in relaxation of Rule 7(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service 
F 
). 
Rules, 1966. In the seniority list he was placed at serial no.I 03 and the private 
respondents were shown at serial nos. 118 and 125. However, in the selection 
to Indian Police Service from State Police Services for the year 1989 held on 
5.1.1990, the private respondents shown junior to the appellant were selected 
but he was not considered for selection on the ground that he was not 
confirmed. After unsuccessfully approaching the Central Administrative G 
Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that after successful completion of 
.,. 
__ 
the period of probation and an order having been passed by the employer to 
that effect, the confirmation would be deemed to have been done. The 
613 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A respondents contended that there was no automatic confirmation unless a 
specific order of confirmation was passed and that in view of provisions of 
Rules 6 and 7 particularly sub Rule (e) of Rule 7 of the APPS Rules, a 
further period of three years was yet to be completed as probationary period 
by the· appellant w.e.f. 27.1.1987 in addition to a period of one year so as to 
B be entitled for confirmation and as the said period in the case of the appellant 
would have completed on 27.1.1990, there was no occasion to consider him 
for selection to Indian Police Service in the year 1989. It was further 
contended that relaxation under Rule 7(e) was granted to the appellant only 
c 
with regard to the period within which written test was required to be cleared 
;.:. 
by a probationer. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the matter of period of probation and confirmation it 
would always depend upon the language of the rule on the point There cannot 
be any dispute about the proposition that where no maximum period of 
D probation is provided there would be no automatic confirmation of the 
employee on expiry of period of probation unless an order is passed in that 
regard. In such cases it is taken that the period of probation continues unless 
and until an order of confirmation is passed. 1624-D-GJ 
Commissioner of Police, Hubli and Anr. v. R.S. More, 12003) 2 SCC 408; 
E High Court of MP. through Registrar and Ors. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, 120011 
7 SCC 161; State of Punjab v. Dharm Singh, 1196813 SCR and Dayaram Dayal 
v. State of MP .. 119971 7 SCC 443, distinguished. 
1.2. In the case of the appellant, the State Government itself has given 
a declaration in the order dated 6.10.1989 that the appellant has satisfactorily 
F completed the period of probation in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of 
Police Category 2. That being the position it cannot be said that despite the 
said order the appellant could still be treated to be continuing on probation 
only for the reason that no specific order of confirmation has been passed. 
After successful completion of the period of probation and any other condition 
G or requirement as may be prescribed under the rules, in the instant case, the 
appellant having passed the tests as prescribed under the Rules, nothing else 
is required to be done and the only corollary to follow is that with successful, 
completion of period of probation the appellant would be deemed 

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