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

1997 Supreme(SC) 236

B. N. KIRPAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, A. M. AHMADI
Tarsem Lal Verma – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard the petitioner in person and the learned ASG for the Union of India. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that his probation period was wrongly enhanced beyond the period of two years fixed under the Rules. Admittedly, he was occupying the post of Photographic Officer. According to the Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Film and Photo Division (Photographic Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called "the Rules") the probation period was fixed at two years without any maximum having been prescribed. Therefore, when the probation of two years expired the petitioners probation was not terminated as his work and conduct were not found to be satisfactory and in order to give him an opportunity to improve his performance it was extended beyond the period of two years, according to the petitioner, by an additional 550 days. The petitioner tried to place reliance on the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Services Rules, 1968 and in particular Rule 13(3) which provides that the total period of probation can be extended not beyond one year. According to him, therefore, when one year beyond the period of two years expired he became automatically confirmed i

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top