The legal principle established is that when the rules specify a maximum probation period, the employee is deemed to be confirmed on the expiry of that period.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article2. 26 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Certiorariquashing the order of discharge of the petitioner dated 5/10/1987.

( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the postof Superintendent (B/r II) w. e. f. 18/01/1983 and he was put on a probation of two years. The Departmental Rules governing the petitioner,which are reproduced on running page 12 of the writ petition, show thatinitial appointment of the officers and other persons has to be on a probationfor the first two years and after completion of that probation period, thecompetent authority has to assess the suitability of the person concerned andpass suitable orders either confirming the successful completion of probationor extending the probationary period for not more than one year at a time. It is also provided that the aggregate period of probation would not, savefor exceptional reasons, exceed four years and on the expiry of or any timeduring the period of probation, the appointing authority does not considerany member suitable for continuance, he shall be discharged and no noticewill be given therefor.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this case isthat after the maximum period of four years of probation provided underthe Rules has expired, whether the respondents were legally right in passinga simpliciter order of discharge of the petitioner without holding disciplinaryproceedings. The order of discharge was made after the expiry of four yearsand about 9 months from the date of initial appointment. The Rules clearlycontemplate that the period of probation cannot be allowed to exceed fouryears at all. if that is the State of Rules, the question which arises forconsideration is as to what could be the status of the petitioner as anemployee on the expiry of maximum period of probation of four years?

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has REFERRED TO to a Constitutionbench decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Dharamsingh, A. I. R, 1968, Supreme Court 1210. In the said case, Rule 6 of thepunjab Education Service (Provincialised Cadre) Rules 1961 came up forconsideration. The said Rule provided that the post in the first instancewould be on probation lor one year and on completion of one year periodof probation, the authority could either extend the period of probation,provided the total period of probation, including the extension, would notexceed three years, In the said case, after the maximum period of probationof three years bad expired, the employee was allowed to continue withoutany specific order being made confirming the employee in the post. Theresort was not taken to the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 for taking any disciplinary action against thepetitioner in that case, but his services were discontinued treating him to benot suitable for service as his service was not found upto the mark duringthe probation period.

( 4 ) THE Supreme Court held that in case the service rules fix a certainperiod of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extendedand an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation is allowed tocontinue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probationwithout an express order of confirmation, then he cannot be deemed tocontinue in that post as a probationer on implication. The reason is that suchan implication is negatived by the service rules forbidding extension of theprobationary period beyond maximum period fixed by it. In such a case, it ispermissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue inthe post on completion of the maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by implication.

( 5 ) THIS ratio laid down in this judgment clearly applies to the facts ofthe present case. The Supreme Court had noticed other judgments of thesupreme Court which bad taken the view consist