A probationary government servant is not automatically confirmed upon the expiry of probation; confirmation requires an affirmative order from a competent authority.

1. The question referred to the Full Bench for answer is, "Whether a Government servant on probation is to be deemed to be confirmed on the expiry of the period of his probation if no orders confirming him in his substantive post or extending his period of probation are passed by the competent authority ?"

2. It has arisen in a special appeal which has been preferred against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Shri D.A. Lyall under Art.226 of the Constitution. The special appeal, was heard by a Bench of which two of us were members, and. as it was felt that the question is of importance and had once been referred and a larger Bench but could not be decided because of some reasons, which it is not necessary to state here, the matter has come up before the Full Bench.

3. The facts of the case in which this question, has been raised have been fully set out of the Judgment of the learned single Judge, may only be briefly touched again.

4. On the approval of the Public Service Commission, U.P. made in 1939, and, after necessary departmental training, Shri D.A. Lyall respondent was appointed an officiating Inspector in the Co - operative Department, U.P. on 25-4-1941, Shortly after, in June 1941, on his request, he was allowed to join Army service on a commissioned post where he served till 1947. Then on his application in. that behalf, he was selected for service in the Forest Department, U.P., in one of the vacancies reserved for War Service candidates.
By an order dated 18th March, 1947, the Registrar, Co - operative Societies, U.P. permitted him to join the Forest Department, retaining his position in the gradation list of the Inspectors Cooperative Societies intact. In fact, the respondent was confirmed as an Inspector in the Co - operative Department with effect from 1-10-1948 vide order No. C. 133 / ESTT dated 17-1-1950. After being selected for service in the Forest Department the respondent underwent necessary training and was posted as an Assistant Conservator of Forests on probation for two years from 1-4-49.
The period of probation expired on 31-3-1953 but no orders for his confirmation on this post were passed. No orders were either passed within two years from 1-4-49 extending his period of probation. His lien on his permanent post as Inspector Co - operative Societies had already been suspended in 1951 by an order passed under R.14(b) of the Fundamental Rules, since he was deputed to serve on a substantive post in the Forest Department.
However, he was still serving as an Assistant Conservator, Forests in August 1953, when charges were framed against the respondent by the Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. and he was asked to explain why he should not be removed from service. The explanation submitted by the respondent to these charges was found unsatisfactory and he was discharged from service of the Forest Department with effect from 23-2-1954. This order was communicated to him on 21-2-1934.
The respondent made a representation against it to the U.P. Government and the order of discharge passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P., was set aside as appears from Notification No. 4418 / XIV - 486-50 read with 3130 / XIV - 48650, dated June 8, 1954 and G.O. No. 174C / XIIC dated January 11, 1956 (annexures - I and A respectively), but it was directed by the Government that the respondent be treated as having reverted to the Co - operative Department from February 24, 1954 and that disciplinary proceedings f