SATYA NARAYAN ATHYA versus HIGH COURT OF M.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 24-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SATYA NARAYAN ATHYA 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF M.P. AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 24, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recrnitment and Condition of 
Services) Rules, 1955: Rule 24(1). 
A 
B 
·Civil Judge-Training-Probation-District Judge Reporting need for C 
improvenient by Civil Judge-Discharge order by High Court during probation 
of Civil Judge-Ground-Non-satisfactory service-Order held valid-Charge 
and enquiry held not necessary. 
M.P. Government Service (Temporary, Quasi-pennanent Service) 
Rules, 1960: 
D 
Civil Judge-:.Discharge from service-Validity of. 
The petitioner, a Civil Judge, was put on probation for two years 
after completion of six months training. The Report of the District Judge 
indicated that he needed improvement in disposal of cases. As his perfor-
E 
mance was considered not satisfactory the High Court discharged him, 
from service during the period of probation. The termination order was 
unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court. In appeal to this Court 
it was contended that petitioner's discharge was arbitrary. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : The High Court was justified in discharging the petitioner 
from service during the period of his probation. It is not necessary that 
there should be a charge and an enquiry on his conduct since the petitioner 
F 
is only on•·probation and during the period of probation, it would be open G 
to the High Court to consider whether he is suitable for confirmation or 
should be discharged from service. It is thus not a fit case warranting 
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [681-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 27178 of 1995. 
H 
679 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.93 of the Madhya Pradesh 
B 
High Court in L.P.A. No. 122 of 1985. 
Ashok Mathur and Amitabh Verma for the Petitioners 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
· The petitioner was appointed on probation as a Civil Judge by 
proceedings dated July 13, 1979. On completion of six months' period, he 
was put on probation with effect from February 16, 1980. Though two years' 
C period had expired, no order of confirmation was issued and he continued 
on probation. In view of the non-satisfactory nature of the service, the Full 
Court decided that he could not be confirmed. Accordingly, orders were 
issued on August 5, 1983 discharging him from service under Rule 52(a) 
of M.P. Government Service (Temporary, Quasi-permanent Service) 
D Rules, 1960. When the petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court, he 
was unsuccessful in Letters Patent Appeal, though he succeeded before 
learned single Judge. Thus this petition for special leave has been. ftled 
against the order of the Division Bench passed on February 3, 1993 in 
L.P.A. No. 122/85. 
E 
The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner has to be deemed 
to have been confirmed after his completion of two years of probation. 
Rule 24(1) of the M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and 
Condition of Services) Rules, 1955, (for short 'the Rules'), provides thus : 
"Every candidate appointed to the cadre shall undergo training for 
F 
a period of six months before he is appointed on probation for a 
period of two years, which period may be extended for a further 
period not exceeding two years. Thus probationers may, at the end 
of period of their probation, be confirmed subject to their fitness 
for confirmation and to having passed, by the higher standard, all 
G 
such departmental examination as may be prescribed." 
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that every candidate appointed to 
the cadre shall undergo training initially for a period of six months before 
he is appointed on probation for a period of two years. On his completion 
of twc years of probation, it may be open to the High Court either to 
H confirm or extend the probation. At the end of the probation period, if he 
S.N.ATHYAv. HIGHCOURTOFM.P. 
681 
is not confirmed on being found unfit, it may be extended for a further A 
period not exceeding two years. It is seen that though there is no order of 
extension, it must be deemed that he was continued on probation for an 
extended period of two years. On completion of two years, he must not be 
deemed to be confirmed automatically. There is no order of confirmation. 
Until the order is passed, he must be deemed to cont

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