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

1995 Supreme(SC) 1210

B.L.HANSARIA, K.RAMASWAMY
Satya Narayan Athya – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
AMITABH VERMA, ASHOK MATHUR

( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed on probation as a Civil Judge by proceedings dated 13/07/1979. On completion of six months period, he was put on probation with effect from 16/02/1980. Though two years period had expired, no order of confirmation was issued and he continued on probation. In view of the non-satisfactory nature of the service, the full Court decided that he could not be confirmed. Accordingly, orders were issued on 5/08/1983 discharging him from service under Rule 52 (a)of M. P. Government Service (Temporary, Quasi-permanent Service) Rules 1960. When the petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court, he was unsuccessful in Letters Patent Appeal, though he succeeded before learned single Judge. Thus this petition for special leave has been filed against the order of the Division Bench passed on 3/02/1993 in L. P. A. No. 122/85

( 3 ) THE question, therefore, is whether the petitioner has to be deemed to have been confirmed after his completion of two years of probation. Rule 24 (1) of the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and condition of Services ) Rules, 1955, (for short the Rules)provides thus:

"every candidate appointed to




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