Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School VS J. A. J Vasu Sena...
Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School VS J. A. J Vasu Sena - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 903 : Under employment law, a probationer is not deemed confirmed in service merely by continued service beyond the probationary period. Confirmation requires a formal order from the appointing authority. Rule 105(1) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, allows a maximum probation period of two years—initial one year plus one extension by ''''another year''''—and the first proviso permits minority institutions to extend probation without prior Director approval. However, confirmation is conditional upon the appointing authority''''s satisfaction with the probationer''''s performance, as stipulated in Rule 105(2). Without a formal confirmation order, no substantive appointment is granted. While continuation beyond the probation period does not lead to deemed confirmation, the court may award ex-gratia compensation in cases of prolonged unjustified probation, especially where the employee has served for years and may now be overaged for reemployment.Checking relevance for Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation VS S. Manjunath...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation VS S. Manjunath - 2000 4 Supreme 652 : Under employment law, a probationer who is not confirmed within the maximum period of probation prescribed by service regulations is deemed to have been confirmed, and their service cannot be terminated without departmental disciplinary proceedings. This principle applies when the rules fix a maximum period for probation beyond which it cannot be extended. In such cases, failure to issue a confirmation order within the maximum probation period results in deemed confirmation. This rule applies to appointees other than those promoted, as distinct from ''''officiation'''' of promotees, which is governed by different provisions. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Service Regulations, Regulation 11, confirms this distinction: while probation for non-promotees has a fixed maximum period, and continuation beyond it without confirmation leads to deemed confirmation, the rules for promotees (officiation) are separate and do not trigger the same automatic confirmation. Therefore, termination after the maximum probation period without disciplinary proceedings is invalid unless the rules explicitly provide otherwise.Checking relevance for Indra Kumar Chopra: Ashwani Kumar Jha VS Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation LTD. ...
Indra Kumar Chopra: Ashwani Kumar Jha VS Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation LTD. - 1992 0 Supreme(SC) 502 : Under the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, probation applies to persons appointed against regular vacancies and lasts for one year, with the possibility of a one-year extension. A post is deemed regular only if it has been in existence continuously for the last five years. An employee on probation may be discharged if they fail to satisfy the appointing authority during or at the end of the probation period, without entitlement to compensation unless mandated by law. Confirmation of an employee is made by the appointing authority upon satisfactory completion of probation, but only if the post is regular. If a post is not regular, confirmation does not arise. The Board has final authority to determine whether a post is regular or not if there is doubt.Checking relevance for High Court Of M. P. Thru. Registrar VS Satya Narayan Thavar...
High Court Of M. P. Thru. Registrar VS Satya Narayan Thavar - 2001 6 Supreme 106 : In employment law, probation and confirmation are governed by the specific language of service rules. A probationer is not automatically confirmed upon expiry of the maximum probation period if the rules require a positive act of confirmation by the employer, such as an order of confirmation and passing departmental examinations. This is particularly true when the rules explicitly condition confirmation on fitness and passing prescribed tests. In such cases, even if the maximum probation period has expired, the probationer cannot be deemed confirmed merely by continuance in service. The power to terminate services after the probation period may still exist if the probationer was found unfit during the probation period, as seen in Rule 24(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, which allows the Governor to dispense with services at any time thereafter if the probationer is found unsuitable or has failed to pass departmental examinations. This contrasts with cases where rules do not require such conditions, and deemed confirmation may arise upon expiry of the maximum probation period, as in the Dharam Singh case. The key distinction lies in whether the rules mandate a specific act of confirmation or allow for automatic confirmation by implication.Checking relevance for Punjab National Bank by Chairman VS Astamija Dash...
Punjab National Bank by Chairman VS Astamija Dash - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 744 : Under employment law, probation and confirmation are governed by specific service rules. A probationary employee must receive an express order of confirmation to acquire a substantive right to the post; mere continuation after the probation period does not imply confirmation. However, if the probation period (fixed at a maximum of three years under Rule 6(3)) expires without an express confirmation order, and the employee continues in service, confirmation may be implied—provided the service rules do not prohibit extension beyond three years. In cases where the rules explicitly limit probation to three years, continuation beyond that period without confirmation cannot be deemed as implied confirmation, and the employee may be considered confirmed by implication. The power to extend probation is limited by the rule that the total period, including extensions, cannot exceed three years. Confirmation by implication is negated if the employee’s work or conduct is found unsatisfactory before the expiry of the probation period, or if a notice to show cause is issued. The principle was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, which held that the three-year limit is mandatory, and confirmation by implication only arises when no order of confirmation is made after the expiry of the maximum probation period, and no adverse proceedings have been initiated.
