SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 27

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M SHELAT, G.K. MITTER AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
The State of Punjab, Appellant
Versus
Dharam Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 787 and 1017 of 1966,
D /- 2-2-1968
In Civil Appeal No. 787 of 1966.
In Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 1966.
Advocates appeared

Advocates:
MOHAN BEHARI LAL, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR, V.MAHAJAN

Headnote:M/s. Vikram Mahajan and S. P. Nayar, Advocates (in Civil Appeal No. 787 of 1967), for Appellant, Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate (In Civil Appeal No 1017 of 1966), for Appellant; Mr. Mohan Behari Lal, Advocate (in both the Appeals), for Respondent.

       MAXIMUM PERIOD WHERE SERVICE RULE FIXES A MAXIMUM PROBATIONER CANNOT BE ALLOWED BEYOND THAT PERIOD

       -held, if the probationer is retained as probationer beyond maximum period, without orders of confirmation, by implication he cannot be deemed to be a probationer. It would be logical to hold in such case that the person is confirmed by implication.

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court held that if the probation period is fixed with a maximum (e.g., three years) and the employee is allowed to continue beyond the expiry without a formal confirmation order, such continuation cannot by itself imply confirmation if the rule forbids extending beyond the maximum period; however, the implication may arise that the employee is confirmed when the maximum period ends and there is no extension order. (!) - The respondents, officiating in permanent posts under Rule 6(1), were treated as probationers; the High Court found they were deemed confirmed after three years (Oct 1, 1960), and the impugned removal orders violated Article 311 and Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952; the Supreme Court sustained this view that their removal without proper procedure was invalid. (!) (!) - There must be an express order of confirmation to grant substantive rights to a post when probation ends; mere continuation beyond the probation period without such an order is not automatically confirmation. (!) - Where the maximum probation period has expired and the authority has continued employment without a written confirmation, it may be deemed that confirmation by implication occurred, but the rule’s proviso restricting extensions affects this inference. (!) - The impugned orders terminating services without following the disciplinary procedure and without Article 311 compliance were set aside; the matter emphasizes adherence to constitutional and civil service procedures for removals. (!)

What is the legality of deeming an employee to be confirmed in their post by implication when the maximum probation period has expired and no express confirmation order is issued?

What is the effect of continuing to hold a post on probation beyond the maximum period without a formal confirmation order, under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961?

What are the constitutional and procedural requirements when terminating a probationer who has, by implication, been deemed confirmed in their post?


Judgement

BACHAWAT, J. : These two connected appeals raise a common question of construction of Rule 6 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961. Before October 1, 1957, Dharam Singh and Dev Raj, the respondents to these appeals, were junior teachers in District Board Schools. The District Board schools were provincialised, and the services of the respondents were taken over by the Punjab State with effect from October 1, 1957 in pursuance of a scheme of provincialisation of Local Bodies schools in the State. On February 13, 1961, the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution framed the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961 regulating the conditions of service of the teaching staff taken over by the State Government from the local authorities. Rule 1 provides that the rules will be deemed to have come into force with effect from October 1, 1957. Rule 3 created the Punjab Educational (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Services consisting of the posts shown in Appendix A. It is common case that the posts held by the respondents are included in Appendix A and carry time scales of pay Rule 6 is in these terms :

"6 (1) Members of the Service, officiating or to be promoted against permanent posts, shall be on probation in the first instance for one year.

(2) Officiating service shall be reckoned as period spent on probation, but no member who has officiated in any appointment for one year shall be entitled to be confirmed unless he is appointed against a permanent vacancy.

(3) On the completion of the period of probation the authority competent to make appointment may confirm the member in his appointment or if his work or conduct during the period of probation has been in his opinion unsatisfactory he may dispense with his services or may extend his period of probation by such period as he may deem fit or revert him to his former post if he was promoted from some lower post :

Provided that the total period of probation including extensions, if any, shall not exceed three years.

(4) Service spent on deputation to a corresponding or higher post may be allowed to count towards the period of probation if there is a permanent vacancy against which such member can be confirmed.

The respondents were officiating in permanent posts and under Rule 6 (3) they continued to hold those posts on probation in the first instance for one year. The maximum period of probation fixed by the rules was three years which expired on October 1, 1960. The respondents continued to hold their posts after October 1, 1960, but formal orders confirming them in their posts were not passed. Under Rule 7, the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab was the appointing authority. By two separate orders passed on February 10, 1963 and April 4, l963, the Director terminated their services. The order in each case stated that the services of the respondent concerned `are hereby terminated in accordance with the terms of his employment. The order shall take effect after one month from the date it is served on him". Rule 12 provides that ill matters relating to discipline, punishment and appeals, members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The orders dated February 10 and April 4, 1963 were passed without holding any departmental enquiry and without giving the respondents any opportunity of making representations against the action taken against them. The respondents filed separate writ petitions in the Punjab High Court challenging the aforesaid orders on the ground that they had acquired substantive rights to their posts, and that the orders amounted to removal from service, and were passed in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. The appellants pleaded that the respondents were temporary employees, that their services were terminated in accordance with the terms of their employ











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top