OM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAV versus STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 19-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
OM PRAKASH SHRIV AST AV A 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. 
APRIL 19, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Seniority-Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General 
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963-Rules 8 and 12-Madhya Pradesh Civil 
Services (Executive) Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Services C 
Rules, 1975-Rule 13-Appe//ant-probationer passed the prescribed 
departmental examination only after his extended period of probation was 
over-He was confirmed with reference to the date of his passing-A 
subsequently appointed probationer, who passed the departmental examination 
within extended period of his probation was placed senior than Appellant by 
flXation of his notional date of confirmation on the day his original period of D 
probation was over, though he had passed the examination later in point of 
time than Appellant-Held: Such ftxation of seniority not contrary to law as 
alleged by appellant-Comes within purview of Rules 8 and 12 of the MP. 
General Rules and Rule 13 of the MP. Executive Rules. 
Appellant, appointed on probation on 1-5-1989, succeeded in the E 
pre~cribed departmental examination on 22-7-1992 only after his extended 
probation period was over on 1-5-1992. The date of his confirmation was 
accordingly taken to be 23-7-1992. Anotl\er probationer though passed the 
departmental examination on 29-1-1993 after his initial appointment on 7-5-
1990, was placed above the appellant in the. seniority list by fixation of his F 
notional date of confirmation on the day his original period of probation was 
over, i.e. 8-5-1992. He had passed the examination within extended period of 
his probation which was to end on 7-5-1993. According to the appellan~ such 
fixation of seniority was contrary to law. CAT did not accept the plea. High 
Court affirmed the order passed by CAT holding that the appellant's claim 
of seniority vis-a-vis the other probationer was untenable. Hence the present G 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. CAT and High Court were justified in rejecting the 
679 
fl 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20051 3 S.C.R. 
A appellant's claim. (686-BJ 
1.2. A combined reading of Rules 8 and 12 of the M.P. General Rules 
and 13 of the l\'.l.P. Executive Rules makes the position clear that seniority 
can be assigned by taking the relevant date to be the date of expiry of normal 
period of probation. In the case of 'R', it was 8-5-1992. So far as the appellant 
B is concerned, the appointing authority has been given power to determine the 
date from which the candidate should be assigned seniority if the period of 
probation of any direct recruit is extended depending on the date of his passing 
the departmental examination. Until the probation period is completed, and 
he is confirmed in the post, the employee does not become a member of the 
C service on successful completion of the probation and passing of the prescribed 
tests or conditions precedent to declaration of completion of the probation 
period. Mere completion of one year period does not entitle the person to be 
a member of the service. He continues to be in temporary service on 
completion of probation period. The appointing authority is to confirm him 
in a pending post available or grant him a quasi-permanent status. Unless he 
D passes departmental examination, there is no question of completion of 
probation and for all practical purposes the employee continues to be in 
temporary service. (685-D-G] 
1.3. A person who has neither been confirmed, nor had a certificate in 
his favour in terms of sub-rule (6), nor discharged from service under sub-
E rule (4) would fall within.the category of those officers referred to in sub-
rule (7) of Rule 8 of the M.P. General Rules. He is to be deemed to be a 
temporary government servant with effect from the date of expiry of 
probation. The position is different in case of an officer, who passes the 
departmental examination within extended period of probation. 
F 
(685-H; 686-AI 
G 
MP. Chandoria v. State of MP. and Ors., (1996] 11 SCC 173 and State 
of MP. v. Ramkinkar Gupta and Ors., (2000] 10 SCC 77, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2698-2699 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2003/28.11.2003 of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 3877/2000 in 
R.Application No. 3399 of 2003. 
Vivek Tankha, Dr. Hursh Pathak, A.S. Raizada and Rajesh with him 
H for the Appellant. 
--
·, 
OM
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.