The main legal point established in the judgment is that a probationer should be deemed to have been confirmed on expiry of the maximum period of probation, and retrospective reversion to a lower post is against the law.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition was filed by one Shri Rajendra Singh making a grievance against the order dated 15.7.2004 (Annexure - 2 to the writ petition) by which he was reverted from the post of Administrative Officer (Group-A Gazetted) to that of Assistant Administrative Officer (Group-B) with effect from 19.8.2003. The petitioner-said Shri Rajendra Singh expired on 24.10.2006 while in service and as such, the writ petition is being pursued by his wife Smt. Maya Devi, whose name has been substituted in place of the original petitioner vide order dated 21.1.2008.

2. The petitioner was promoted as Civilian Officer Grade-H by Annexure -1 notification dated 4.2.1997. In the order of promotion, it was stated that he would be on probation for a period of two years from the date of assumption of charge of the promotional post.

3. From the materials on record, it appears that his period of probation was extended from time to time, the last extension being up to 18.8.2003 by order dated 30.10.2002. By the time, the period of probation was extended up to 18.8.2003, the petitioner had put on more than 6 years of service in the promotional post.

4. Placing reliance on the Annexure - 3 order dated 10.8.1991 prescribing the maximum period of probation, it is the case of the petitioner that his period of probation could not have been extended beyond 4 years.

5. As per the aforesaid order dated 10.8.1998, the period of probation is for 2 years, extendable on year to year basis to a maximum period of 4 years as per Article 202 of the C.S.R. Vol-I. The order further stipulates that the extension of the period of probation is required to be conveyed to the probationer concerned well before completion of 2 or 3 years service, as the case maybe, otherwise the individual will be deemed to have successfully completed the period of probation.

6. The aforesaid order further emphasizes that the issuance of extension orders after expiry of extended period of probation i.e. 4 years will not have any legal validity as per the views expressed by various Courts. The said order further emphasizes that if an incumbent remain? in service even after 4 years, it is accepted that he has.successfully completed, the period of probation under deemed clause.

7. As noted above, the period of probation of the petitioner was extended beyond stipulated period of 4 years. By order dated 30.10.2002, it was extended up to 18.8.2003. The petitioner continued in the promotional post beyond 18.8.2003 without, however, any order of extension. The period of probation was also not extended beyond 18.8.2003. However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2004 nearly after one year of last extension of the period of probation (18.8.2003) reverting the petitioner to his former post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Group-B) from that of the promotional post of Administrative Officer (Group-A Gazetted). Such reversion was made effective retrospectively i.e. from 19.8.2003, unmindful of the fact that by the time, the impugned order dated 15.7.2004 was passed, the petitioner was occupying the promotional post.

8. I have heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Rahman, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. P. Khatun.

9. While Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having completed the maximum period of probation, he should be deemed to have been confirmed in the promotional post. Mr. Rahman, learned ASG of India submits that in absence of any express order confirming the services of the petitioner in the promotional post the petitioner cannot claim automatic confirmation. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation and Ors.).

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties as well