OM PRAKASH MAURYA versus U.P. COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION, LUCKNOW & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 09-05-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OM PRAKASH MAURY A 
v. 
U.P. COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION, 
B 
LUCKNOW & ORS. 
MAY 9, 1986 
\ r 
IO. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
i 
' 
c 
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1975, Sections 121and122, scope 
( 
of the scheme under-if two sets of service Rules are prevalent, which 
would prevail---Whether the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federa-
lion Service Rules, 1976 override the U.P. Cooperative Societies' Emp-
loyees Service Regulations 1975. 
D 
Deemed Confirmation-Whether an employee who has completed 
the statutory maximum period of probation could be deemed to have 
been confirmed-U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regu-
lations 1975, Regulations 17 and 18--Whether reversion to substantive 
post in such a case, valid. 
\ 
E 
In the State of Uttar Pradesh there are two sets of service rules (i) 
/ 
The U .P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 
framed by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Authority constituted by 
the State Government through a Notification dated March 4, 1978 as an 
authority for th~ recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the 
employees of the Apex Level Societies Central or Primary Societies and; 
F 
(2) the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Employees' 
Service Rules 1976 framed by the cane commissioner by virtue of the 
power vested under section 122(1) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act 
"l'l 
which provided that they shall apply to all the employees of the U.P. 
Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. While the proviso to Regu-
lation 17 restricts the power of the appointing authority in extending 
G 
the period of probation beyond the period of one year and in case of an 
employee appointed against a regular vacancy beyond two years, Rule 5 
of the Federation Service Rules 1976 does not place any such restriction 
on the appointing authority's power to extend the period of probation 
and in the absence of a confirmation order, the employee shall continue 
/ 
to be a probation for indefinite period. Again while the Regulations 
H 
framed by the Institutional Service Board require approval of the State 
I 
\ 
l 
I 
L. 
< 
O.P. MAURY A'· SUGAR FACTORIES [SINGH,J.J 
79 
Government under sub-section 2 of section 122 of the Act, the Rules do 
A 
not provide for an approval. Section 2(a-4) which defmes "Apex Level 
Societies" specifies the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation 
Ltd. as an Apex Level Society. 
The appellant joined service in Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. 
B 
Bisalpur District Pilibhit, a Sugar Factory run and managed by the 
U.P. Cooperative Mills Federation. While working as an Office 
Superintendent, he was selected for promotion to the post of commer-
cial officer and by an order dated 29.8.80 appointed on probation for a 
period of one year which was extended by another order dated 2.10. 81 
till 4.9.82. No further order either extending the period.of probationary 
period or confirming him on the post was issued and while so continuing 
C 
he was reverted, by an order dated 2.9.83, to the post of office 
Superintendent. The appellant challenged the validity of the reversion 
order before the High Court of U .P. (Lucknow Bench) on the sole 
ground that on the expiry of the probationary period he stood con-
firmed and he could not be reverted treating him on probation. The 
0 
High Court held that on the expiry of the probationary period, the 
appellant could not be deemed to be confirmed as there was no rule 
prohibiting the extension of the probationary period. Hence the appeal 
by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: I. I Since the appellant's services were regulated by the 
U .P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, I975 under 
which his services could not be extended beyond the maximum period of 
two years, he stood confirmed by implication on the expiry of maximum 
probationary period and thereafter, he could not be reverted to a lower 
F 
post treating him on probation. The order of reversion is illegal. [87D-E] 
1.2 Reading Regulations 17 and 18 together it is clear that an 
employee appointed against a regular vacancy cannot be placed on 
probation for a period more than two years and if during the period of 
probation the appointing authority is of the opinion that the employee 
G 
has not made use of opportunity afforded to him he may discharge him 
from service or revert him to his substantive post but he has no power to 
extend the period of

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