THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HUBLI AND ANR. versus R.S. MORE

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 21-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HUBLI AND ANR. 
v. 
R.S. MORE 
JANUARY 21, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977-Rules 5(2) and 6-
C Confirmation of service-Whether can be deemed if post held beyond probation 
or extended period-Held, continuance on post beyond probation or extended 
period cannot be considered to be deemed confirmation in absence of specific 
order passed by the competent authority. 
D 
· The probation period of respondent, a police constable was extended 
and after the extended period of probation, he was discharged from the 
service on the ground that his services during probation period were not 
found satisfactory. Respondent's application against the discharge order 
was dismissed by State Administrative Tribunal. Writ Petition against 
the Tribunal's order was allowed. Hence this appeal. 
E 
F 
The question for consideration before this Court was whether the 
continuance of the respondent on the post beyond the probation period 
or extended period, entitle him to have claimed deemed confirmation in 
absence of specific order passed by competent authority to that effect. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In service jurisprudence confirmation of service on a 
particular post is preceded by satisfactory performance of the incumbent 
unless service rules otherwise provide. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Karnataka 
Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 provides that unless there is a 
G specific order that the probationer has satisfactorily completed the period 
of probation, he shall not be entitled to be deemed to have satisfactorily 
-+ 
completed the probation by reason of his being continued in service beyond 
-,,,, 
H 
the extended period of probation. (456-F-GI 
2. In the instant case, no specific order has been passed by any 
452 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. R.S. MORE [H.K. SEMA, J.) 
453 
authority, certifying the satisfactorily completion of probation period of A 
the respondent. The order discharging the respondent, in exercise of 
powers under Rule 6 has been passed after the extended period of 
probation was over. However, that itself would not entitle the respondent 
to have claimed deemed confirmation in absence of specific order to that 
effect. 1456-D, El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 177 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.1999 of the High Court of 
Karnataka in WP607 /99. 
Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra for the Appellants. 
Respondent for the Ex-parte. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
SEMA, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.1999 passed by the High 
Court in W.P. No. 607 of 1999 setting aside the order dated 25.9.1998, 
passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter 
referred to as the Tribunal) in application No. 17 of 1998 dismissing the 
application filed by the respondent, the State has come up in appeal by E 
Special Leave. The respondent was put to notice, but despite receipt of notice, 
none has entered appearance on his behalf. 
The respondent was appointed as a Police Constable on probation for 
a period of two years and six months. He joined service as a Police Constable 
on 26.6.1992. Though, the period of probation came to an end on 2.12.1994, F 
the respondent, however, continued on the post. On 14.3.1996, probation 
period of the respondent was extended by one year and three months. The 
respondent was discharged from service by an order dated 12.11.1997 in 
exercise of powers under Rule 6( I) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) 
Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules) as his services during the G 
period of probation were stated to be found unsatisfactory. Aggrieved by the 
order of discharge, the respondent filed an application before the Tribunal on 
24.12.1997 being application No. 17 of 1998, which was dismissed by the 
Tribunal on 25.9.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent had filed a Writ 
Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which was allowed 
by the High Court setting aside the order of Tribunal and also the order H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2-003) 1 S.C.R. 
A .· discharging the respondent from service. Hence this appeal. 
The shprt question that arises for consideration is. as· to whether the 
continuance· of the respondent on the post beyond the probation period or 
extended period, as the case may be, entitled him to have claimed deemed 
confirmation, in abs

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