The probation period of an employee cannot be extended indefinitely without a valid order and the rules governing the probation period cannot be applied retrospectively to appointments made before the rules came into effect.

1. - This matter has come up today for final disposal and as such is being disposed of, reply having been filed by the non-petitioner.

2. Admittedly, when each of the petitioner was appointed under order dated 30th July 1988 on the post of helper in the Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation Limited, respondent, there were no service rules or regulations in force. It was only by resolution No. 25 State (sic) 10 dated 6th Dec. 1988 that the Rajasthan State Handloom Development Corporation Employees Recruitment Rules, 1987 (for short the Rules) were adopted. The appointment of each of the petitioners along with two others was on consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month and the period of probation was six months. It was stated in the aforesaid order of appointment that if after the period of probation of six months their work was found satisfactory, they will be appointed permanently in the pay scale of helper. It is a case of the petitioners that their period of probation was extended by an order dated 6th April 1989. The said period of probation was extended from 1st February 1989 to 30th April 1989. According to the petitioners each of them had completed the aforesaid extended period of probation satisfactorily. But still none of them has been confirmed. The petitioners have claimed that after the expiry of the period of probation they should be declared to be regularly appointed helpers and on the basis of Equal Pay for Equal Work from the date of their appointment as helper, they should be allowed the same pay scale which is payable to the helper.

3. Show cause notice was issued and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has not been disputed that each of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of helper for a period of six months. It has also not been said that the work of each of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the period of probation and, therefore, they were not confirmed and the period of probation was extended from time to time and the petitioners are still on probation.

4. A perusal of the reply filed by the respondent will show that along with it a few annexures have been filed but surprisingly none of those annexures say that the period of probation was extended from time to time and there is no endorsement on any of these orders. They do not bear any date. Even assuming that they were the reports from the officers under whom each of the petitioner was working about their allegedly unsatisfactory work and thereafter orders must have been issued extending the period of probation of each of the petitioner, neither any such order has been produced nor it has been stated in the reply. It can, therefore be said that firstly there being no date on the various annexures R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6 under which it was reported by the officers that the period of probation of the petitioners should be extended and they, therefore, have become highly suspicious documents. Even if it is taken that such an order was made then there are no such orders on record that the period of probation was extended and the same was communicated to any of the petitioner after the extention as claimed by the petitioners. Each of the petitioner as stated earlier was appointed on 30th July 1988. Only one report in respect of each of the petitioner recommending extending their period of probation for a period of six months has been filed. A perusal of Annex. R-1 to R-8 will show that they relate to each of the petitioner. Under each of them the period of probation of each of the petitioner was recommended to be extended by six months. There is, thus no second order extending the period of probation of the petitioners. It can, therefore, be said that there is material whatsoever that after the expiry of the period of probation and after the extention of period of probation as aforesaid, even if it be taken to have been an order extending the period of probation in the absence of