important point
When probation is extendable for further period, an employee cannot be said to have completed probation merely by efflux of time. An order confirming him in service is required to be expressly passed.

judgment

P.P. Naolekar, J. —

Leave granted.

The appellant was employed by UCO Bank (for short the Bank) as Clerk on 28.8.1982. He was promoted as Assistant Manager with effect from 1.8.1997. The promotion order, among other terms, has specifically provided that he shall be on probation for one year. The period of probation may, if necessary, be extended upto a total period of two years in the Banks discretion, as specified in Clause 3.8.2 of the Promotion Policy Settlement (PPS) dated 13.4.1988. Vide order dated 6.8.1998, the appellant was transferred to Mavoor where he had joined the service. The appellant, for certain reasons, wanted the Management of the Bank to revert him to his original post and made a representation to that effect on 3.3.1999. The request of the appellant for reversion to the clerical cadre was acceded to by the respondent Bank vide orders dated 6.5.1999 and 15.5.1999 on the following conditions:-

(1)You shall forfeit permanently your chance for promotion to officers cadre;

(2)You shall be posted in the capacity of a Clerk notwithstanding your occupying any functional special allowance post prior to your promotion;

(3)Your name will be included in the common seniority list of eligible employees in the clerical cadre for selection to functional special allowance posts under bipartite settlements after five years from the date of such reversion;

(4)On reversion, you shall work in both Cash and Accounts Department;

You will not be aligible for stagnation increment(s).

The order dated 15.5.1999 further stipulated that he shall be relieved immediately and can join at the new place of posting after availing permissible joining time. The reversion of the appellant was subject to Clause 3.8.3(b) of the PPS dated 13.4.1988 and Clause 5(c)(ii) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14.2.1995.

2.After the acceptance of the reversion of the appellant by the respondent Bank, the appellant was relieved on 28.10.1999. Prior to that, an application was moved by the appellant on 7.6.1999 to the effect that he may be permitted to withdraw the request for his reversion. The respondent Bank did not accept the request made by the appellant. That led the appellant to approach the Court by filling a writ petition. It was contended in the writ petition that the conditions regarding permanent forfeiture of promotion and ineligibility to get stagnation increments are the conditions which marred the prospects of the petitioner in his service career and are unconstitutional and, therefore, be struck down. It was also contended that the petitioners request of withdrawal of his request for reversion should have been considered by the Bank and appropriate order passed. The petitioner prayed for quashing of the order of reversion passed by the respondent Bank reverting him to the clerical cadre. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition refusing the prayer for quashing the reversion order.

3.Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed a writ appeal. The writ appeal was allowed by judgment dated 6.11.2003 and the Division Bench of the High Court held that the appellant was entitled to stagnation increments and there was no justification for forfeiting his chances of promotion to the officers cadre. The order of reversion of the appellant was also set aside and the respondent Bank was directed to post the appellant as an officer of the Bank with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, the respondent Bank filed a review petition praying for review of judgment dated 6.11.2003 passed by the writ appeal court. The review court found factual errors in the judgment and on the basis of such factual errors, the application of law was found to be improper, and with these findings, the Court came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Division Bench allowing the writ appeal was not in accordance with law. On that basis, the judgment of the Division Bench in writ appeal was set aside and in consequence thereof the writ p