The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no automatic confirmation on the expiry of the probation period, and the confirmation order can be passed only if there is a vacancy and the work is found to be satisfactory.

JUDGMENT

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

The above two appeals were filed by the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat and Mr. C.G. Sharma respectively against the final judgment and order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1721/1999 in Special Civil Application No. 11218/1994 whereby the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Mr. C.G. Sharma- respondent in C.A.No. 4019/2002 and appellant in C.A. No. 575/2003 and directed that Mr. C.G. Sharma shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits as if the termination order had never been passed. Aggrieved by the findings of the Division Bench in regard to his contention of deemed confirmation, Mr. C.G. Sharma filed Civil Appeal No. 575/2003.

2. Both these appeals raised common question of law about the interpretation of the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") regarding the power of the Government to extend the period of probation. Hence both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. Mr. C.G. Sharma, respondent in C.A.No.4019/2002 was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class on probation for a period of two years vide Government Notification dated 7.6.1991. He joined his duties on 29.6.1991. By the order dated 22.9.1994, the respondents services were terminated with immediate effect on account of unsuitability for the post held by him under the recommendations of the High Court. The said order was challenged in Special Civil Application No. 11218 of 1994 on various grounds, more particularly, on the ground that two years period of probation having expired, the respondent must be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and, therefore, the respondents services could not have been terminated without holding a departmental enquiry. The respondent also invoked the principles of natural justice by contending that opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to him before terminating his services. It was also contended before the learned single Judge that the respondent had tried to the best of his capacity to dispose of the cases and that many others who had no disposal as per the norms were confirmed in the post but because of the pick and choose approach the respondents services came to be terminated.

4. The petition was resisted by the Registrar of the High Court pointing out that the respondents case was examined by the High Court and having regard to the fact that the overall performance of the respondent was not satisfactory, the High Court recommended to the State Government on 12.9.1994 to terminate the respondents services with immediate effect on account of unsuitability for the post held by him and accordingly the State Government issued a Notification terminating the respondents services. It was further contended that the respondent was originally serving as an Assistant in the Establishment of the High Court and upon termination of his services as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, he has been taken back by the establishment of the High Court with effect from 27.9.1994. It was also submitted that there were adverse remarks in the Confidential Reports which were communicated to the respondent and that the period of probation was extended by one year w.e.f. 17.6.1993. During the subsequent period also, the respondent was communicated the adverse remarks for the quarters between 15.6.1993 and 15.5.1994 and that the High Court considered the respondents overall performance and on 12.9.1994 recommended to the State Government to terminate the respondents services on the ground of unsuitability for the post.

5. Though various grounds have been taken in the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for Mr. C.G. Sharma before the High Court have concentrated on the legal c