STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus VEERAPPRA SABOJI AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 06-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
551 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
VEERAPP A R. SABOJI AND ANR. 
September 6, 1979 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Terndnation sin1pliciter-Appointment purely on a te1nporary, basis with 
a 
probation for a period of two years during lVhich the appointee would be tenni-
nated with one month's notice-Two years' probationary 
periOd 
expired on 
B 
.6 .. 12-1962-Respondent No. 1 lvas allowed to continue in the post only in an 
officiating capacity and was not con-finned-Services terminated by a sifnple order 
C 
of terniination dated 15-12-1971 w.e.f. 1-2-1912-Whether the order lVas passed 
by way of punishnient in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 
Deemed confi,rn1ation-Whether spelt out fron1 Rule 4(2) (iv) of the Bon1-
bay Judicial Sen'ice Recruitment Rules, 1956. 
Right to i11forrnation from the relevant official record forming the basis of 
D 
the order tern1inating the service-When can the Court call for the records. 
Respondent 1 joined the judicial service Class IT in the State of Maharashtra 
on the 7th Decelnber, 1960 as per his order of appointment which clea1ly states 
(i) that he would be on probation for a pericxl of two years fron1 the date of his 
joining, (ii) that during that period, his appointment would be liable to be termi-
nated without notice, (iii) that after the period of probation his services would 
be liable to be terminated on one month's notice· as long as his appointment was 
temporary. The two years' probationary period originally fixed. expired on 6th 
December of 1962 even so he was allowed to continue in the post only in an offi-
ciating capacity and was not confirmed. His services were terminated with effect 
from 1-2-1972 by a simple order of termination dated 15th December 1971. Res-
pondeht 1 challenged the order of his termination by filing a writ petition. The 
High Court of Bombay allowed the petition holding (!) that Respondent 1 would 
be deemed to have been confirmed in his post because his work wM satisfactory 
and a vacancy in the permanent cadre was available. The· Government had no 
discretion in the matter and it was bound to confirm him under Rule 4(2)(iv) 
of the Rules (2) that the appointment of respondent l, therefore, could not be 
terminated by a simple notice of termination and it was passed by way of punish-
ment in violation of Artic_le 311(2) of the Constitution . 
Allowing the appeal by special leave~ the Court 
HELD: Per Untwalia !. 
1. Sub rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Bombay Judicial Service Rules, 1956 deals 
E 
F 
G 
with the method of recruitment to the Junior Branch Class JI. Clause (iv) of 
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 deals with probation and confirmation. There are two 
D 
parts of clause (iv)-(a) that it is imperative to put every person appointed 
u'n·d~r sub-rule (2) on probation for a minimum period of two years "unless 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
otherwise expressly directed" and (b) on the expiry of the said period of two 
yea!8 th~ eprson appointed may be confirmed, if there is a vacancy and if bis 
work is found to be satisfactory. 
[557H, 558 B-CJ 
The plain meaning of the rule is that there is no automatic confirmation en 
the expiry of the probationary period of two years in the first instance. On the 
expiry of the said period and on the fulfilment of the requirement of sub-clauses 
a 
(a) and (b) a Government servant becomes eligible for being confirmed and 
normally he is likely to be confirmed. But, in many branches of Government 
service including the judiciary that for administrative reasons or otherwise the 
confirmation is delayed and is made at a subsequent time. It may also be delayed 
for watching the work of the' Government servant for a further period .. The 
expression "unless otherwise expressly directed" governs only the first part of 
clause (iv) and not the second Part. Therefore the rule in question comes under 
C 
the ordinary and normal rufe that without an express order of confirmation the 
Government servant will not be taken to, have been confirmed in the post to 
which he was appointed temporarily and/ or on probation. It is not covered by 
the exceptional rule like the one in State of Punjab v. D/laram Singh, 
[1968] 
. 3 S.C.R. !. [558C-FJ 
State of Punjab v. Dharam,Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 1, Kedar Natl1 Bahl v. State 
D 
of Punjab and Ors., A,I.R. 1972 SC 873; referred to. 
2. Rule 4(2) (iv) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 
does not violate Articles 14 an

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