Gangele, J. -- 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 12.3.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8104/2003.

2. The appellant was appointed on the post of Deputy Collector in M.P. State Administrative Services in the pay-scale 2200-4000 vide order dated 12.8.1997. It was one of the condition of appointment that the appellant had to clear the required examination, in accordance withthe rule 13(3) of M.P. State Administrative Services (Classification, Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975). The appellant was required to pass prescribed departmental examination during the period of probation and thereafter she shall be confirmed on the post. If the appellant did not clear the examination, her services could be terminated. The probation period of the appellant was initially for two years.

3. Vide gazette notification dated 17.1.1977, the General Administrative Department prescribed three subjects which had to be cleared by the appellant namely (i) Criminal, Civil, Administrative and Revenue Law and Procedure, (ii) Hindi, (iii) Accounts.

4. As per the aforesaid circular, Deputy Collectors were required to clear all the three subjects with higher standard, within the period of probation i.e. two years. The appelant clelared three subjects at the end of her probation period i.e. 31.8.1999. Meanshile, vide gazette notification dated 19.3.1999, General Administrative Department prescribed a new subject “Panchayat Raj Administrative Law and Procedure” in the examination. It was added from the date of publication of the gazette i.e. 19.3.1999.. The appellant appeared in the examination of the aforesaid subject in the month of July 1999 as mentioned by the respondents in the return. She did not clear the examination of the subject “Panchayat Raj Administrative Law and Procedure”. Hence, the department extended period of probation of the appellant for a period of one year vide order dated 2.7.2000. Finally, the appellant cleared the aforesaid subject on 27.1.2001 and she was confirmed w.e.f. 28.1.2001 and assigned the seniority accordingly. Other five persons, who had been appointed along with the appellant on the post of Deputy Collector, cleared the examination of three papers prior to the gazette notification dated 19.3.1999, hence, it was not necessary for them to clear the newly added subject “Panchayat Raj Administrative Law and Procedure”, they were assigned the seniority above the appellant.

5. The appellant submitted a representation before the authority in regard to her confirmation and assigning seniority w.e.f. 28.1.2001 on the ground that in accordance with scheme of examination two years period was prescribed to qualify the examination. The appellant cleared all the three papers within the aforesaid period except “Panchayat Raj Administrative Law and Procedure” which was introduced as an extra subject vide gazette notification dated 19.3.1999, hence, it was not necessary for the appellant to clear the examination upto 31.8.1999 because for clealring examination in the subjects, a period of two years was prescribed and four chances were given to a probationer to clear the exam, however, in the present case only one chance was given to the appellant to clear the exam, it is illegal. Representation of the appellant was rejected vide communication dated 16.1.2003. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Bench Gwalior. After abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to the High Court and the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dismissed the writ petition.

6. Rule 13(3) of the Rules of 1975 prescribes that a probationer has to pass prescribed departmental examination by higher standard during the period of probation. The relevant rule is as under :

“The probationer shall undergo the prescribed training and pass the prescribed departmental examination by the higher standard