Successful completion of probation does not confer automatic confirmation; a separate order is required under specified rules.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order dated 26.11.2020 and the Memorandum dated 18.06.2021 passed by the respondent and further praying for a direction to the respondent to give to the petitioner two years lien against the post of Personal Assistant by treating her as a confirmed employee.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Personal Assistant vide Office Memorandum dated 07.06.2017 by the respondent. The Office Memorandum stated that the petitioner shall be placed on probation initially for a period of two years with a stipulation that expiry of the period of probation shall not result in the automatic confirmation of the petitioner to the said post. The petitioner later applied for appointment to the post of Senior Personal Assistant with the Supreme Court and was selected to the said post. For appointment she needed to tender the technical resignation with the respondent, however, as she wished to retain the lien to the post of Personal Assistant with the respondent and as she had already successfully completed the probation period, vide letter dated 12.11.2020, the petitioner requested the respondent to issue confirmation letter in her favour to the post of Personal Assistant and grant her lien to the said post. The respondent, however, by the Impugned Order dated 26.11.2020 accepted the technical resignation of the petitioner and relieved her from the service with immediate effect. It is only later that by an office order dated 22.12.2020 it was declared that the petitioner had successfully completed her probation period as on 20.06.2019. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation dated 13.04.2021 to allow her to retain lien to the post of Personal Assistant for a period of two years. The said representation was, however, rejected by the respondent vide Impugned Memorandum dated 18.06.2021, forcing the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil vs. State of Karnataka and Anr., (2010) 8 SCC 155, on successful completion of the probation period the petitioner was entitled to be confirmed to the post of Personal Assistant and in fact there was a case of `deemed confirmation'. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced by delay in issuance of a formal confirmation order by the respondent. Once treated as a confirmed employee, the petitioner was entitled to retain lien to the post of Personal Assistant for a period of two years.

5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Ms.Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue raised by the petitioner is no longer res integra. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in V.K. Mittal and Ors. vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi and Ors., [Judgment dated 21.01.2016 in W.P.(C) 2836/2010] and Ms. Shayda Abbasi v. The Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, [Judgment dated 05.02.2020 in W.P.(C) 1332/2020], she submits that this Court on examining Rule 8 (a) of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `1972 Rules') as also the Office Order dated 29.01.1996 issued by this Court on its administrative side laying down the guidelines that would apply for the confirmation of an employee on a given post till the level of Assistant and equal