icable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and the question of confirmation of judi 494 cial officer was completely within the domain of control of the HighCourt under Article 235 of the Constitution the findings of the High Court that the officers should not be confirmed cannot be accepted
499E F The judgment and orders of the Division Bench set aside
Appellants reinstated in service with the arrears of pay since the date of termination
The orders of the Full Bench quashing the impugned order of termination of respondent in CA No 2860 of 1985 affirmed but not the reasons for such quashing
499G H  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos
59  60 of 1982 etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 941981 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition Nos
61 and 120 of 1980
Dr YS Chitale GL Sanghi Mrs AK Verma Miss F Desai section Sukumaran DN Mishra Vivek Gambhir and SK Gambhir for the Appellants
RP Bhatt TC Sharma Shri Narain and Sandeep Narain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
The only question that arises for consideration in these appeals by special leave is whether Rule 3 A of MP Government Service Temporary  Quasi Permanent Service Rules 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Rules  is applicable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service of the Madhya Pradesh Government
In Civil Appeals Nos
59  60 of 1982 both the appellants were appointed Civil judges on temporary and officiating basis for a period of six months for training and thereafter for a period of two years on probation
It is not necessary to state in detail the facts and suffice it to say that both the appellants were not ultimately confirmed by the High Court after the expiry of the period of probation or the extended period of probation
The High Court recommended the termination of services of the appellants to the State Government and pursuant to such recommendation the State Government terminated the services of the appellants under Rule 12 of the Rules
Being aggrieved by the orders of termination of their services the appellants filed writ petitions 495 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
It was contended by them A that in view of Rule 3 A of the Rules they should be deemed to be in guasi permanent service
Rule 3 A provides as follows R 3 A Government servant in respect of whom a declaration under clause ii of Rule 3 has not been issued but has been in temporary service continuously for five years in a service or post in respect of which such declaration could be made shall be deemed to be in quasi permanent service unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the appointing authority otherwise order
 As a declaration under clause ii of Rule 3 had not been issued and as the appellants were in temporary service continuously for five years in the post of Civil Judges in respect of which such declaration could be made it was contended they should be deemed to be in quasi permanent service and that accordingly the orders of termination of their services were illegal and invalid
It was however contended on behalf of the respondents that the question of confirmation came within the purview of Article 235 of the Constitution of India vesting in the High Court control over subordinate courts and consequently the provision of Rule 3 A had no application to the members of Subordinate Judicial Service
The Division Bench of the High Court took the view that if in Rule 3 A in place of the words appointing authority the words competent authority be read it would be consistent with Article 235 of the Constitution
The Division Bench overruled the contention of the appellants that although the High Court considered them unfit for confirmation yet Rule 3 A would apply as it did not record any reason why they should not be deemed to be in quasi permanent service as provided in Rule 3 A
The Division Bench observed as follows It was also argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the case of the petitioners was considered by the High Court only for their confirmation and not suitability for employment in a quasi permanent capacity when a resolution was passed declaring them to be unfit for confirmation
On this basis it was argued that the High Court s resolution could not therefore be construed as otherwise order  contemplated by the latter part of Rule 3 A There is no merit in this contention
The resolution passed in the Court meeting adjudging them not fit for confirmation 496 satisfies the requirement as continuance in quasi permanent capacity is included within the ambit or confirmation against the post held by the petitioners
 Accordingly the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants
In Civil Appeal No 2860 of 1985 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has assailed the judgment and order of its Full Bench
The respondent in that appeal also was appointed a Civil Judge on a temporary and officiating basis for a period of six months for training and thereafter for a period of two years on probation
In his case also the High Court did not confirm him after the expiry of the probationary period and he continued without an order of confirmation or discharge
In a Full Court Meeting held on February 27 1981 it was decided not to confirm the respondent presumable in view of certain adverse remarks against him which were directed to be communicated to him
Ultimately his services were terminated under Rule 12 of the Rules
Aggrieved by the order of termination the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
The learned Single Judge referred the petition to the Full Bench for answering the following question Whether the resolution of the Court Meeting dated 272
1981 satisfies the requirement of an otherwise order of the appointing authority by recording reasons in writing as contemplated under Rule 3 A of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants Temporary and Quasi Permanent Ser vice Rules 1960 The Full bench approved of the view expressed by the Division Bench in its judgment which is under appeal in the above Civil Appeals Nos
59  60 of 1982 to the extent that in Rule 3 A in place of the words appointing authority the words competent authority should be read so as to make the rule workable and consistent with Article 235 of the Constitution
The Full Bench however did not agree with the Division Bench that the finding of the High Court in its resolution that the respondent was not fit for confirmation could not be regarded as reasons  within the meaning of Rule 3 A but was the conclusion  of the High Court
The full Bench also made a distinction between reason  and conclusion  and took the view that as no reason was given by the High Court as to why the respondent should not be deemed to be in quasi permanent service the impugned order of 497 termination of the service of the respondent was illegal and invalid
In that view of the matter the Full Bench quashed the impugned order of termination of the respondent and allowed the writ petition although the learned Single Judge referred the writ petition to the Full Bench for answering the question as mentioned above
Dr Chitale learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court submits that both the Division Bench and the Full Bench proceeded on an erroneous view that Rule 3 A would apply to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service
He has drawn our attention to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Classification Requirement  Conditions of Service Rules 1955 hereinafter referred to as MP Judicial Service Rules  framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
There can be no doubt the MP Judicial Service Rules are special rules applying to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service of the State of Madhya Pradesh
Rule 16 provides as follows R 16
 1 Every person appointed to the cadre by direct recruitment shall be required to undergo training for a period of one year at the end of which he shall be placed on probation for a period of one year
2 The training shall be such as may be prescribed by the High Court
3 Every such person shall be required to pass the departmental examinations prescribed for Civil Judges
4 The probationers may at the end of the period of their probation be confirmed subject to their fitness for confirmation and to having passed the departmental examinations by the higher standard
5 The High Court may in any case recommend the extension of the period of probation by a period not exceeding one year
If the person concerned is not considered fit for confirmation at the end of such period or fails to pass the prescribed departmental examinations his services shall be dispensed with Rule 165 provides inter alia that if the person concerned is not considered for confirmation at the end of the probationary period his services
shall be dispensed with
Whether a member of Subordinate 498 Judicial Service should be confirmed or not is absolutely the concern of the High Court
The question of confirmation falls squarely within Article 235 of the Constitution and no rule framed by the State Government can interfere with the control vested in the High Court under Article 235
In BS Yadav vs State of Haryana  a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the question whether a particular judicial officer has successfully completed his probation or not is a matter which is exclusively within the domain of the High Court to decide
In an earlier decision of this Court in High Court of Punjab  Haryana vs State of Haryana  it was held that the confirmation of persons appointed to be or promoted to be District Judges was clearly within the control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution
In view of the above decisions of this Court it must be held that both the Full Bench and the Division Bench were wrong in placing reliance upon Rule 3 A of the Rules
As the High Court did not confirm the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos
59  60 of 1982 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 2860 of 1985 the question of their being deemed to be in quasi permanent service does not arise
Further as the question of confirmation was completely within the domain of the control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution there was no necessity to read the words competent authority in place of the words appointing authority for Rule 3 A was inapplicable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service
Moreover as already noticed there is a specific provision for termination of service of a judicial officer who is found by the High Court to be unfit for confirmation as provided in Rule 165 of the MP Judicial Service Rules
Dr Chitale learned Counsel for the High Court has produced before us the confidential service records of all these judicial officers
We have carefully gone through the yearly reports of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos
59  60 of 1982
Whatever might be the adverse remarks against the appellant No 1 the report of the learned District  Sessions Judge dated March 31 1978 is quite favourable except that it has been pointed out in the report that she should be careful to see that all her judgments are properly paragraphed and findings are noted against all issues
Further it has been observed that there is need for improvement in the quality of her work
In view of the said report of the District  Sessions Judge we do not think that the High 499 Court was justified in not confirming the appellant
So far as appellant No 2 in Civil Appeal Nos
59  60 of 1982 is concerned the report for the period from 1 4 1977 to 31 3 1978 contains the remark very good
It was also recorded under the general remarks He is very industrious
During the year under report he disposed of 68 old civil suits  In the report for the period ending September 30 1978 it has been observed His reputation is bad at present
He has been asked to improve his image This observation is somewhat vague
The report for the period ending March 31 1979 is however completely in favour of the appellant
The performances of the appellant have been found to be highly satisfactory
As regards the respondent in Civil Appeal No 2860 of 1985 although he succeeded before the Full Bench on a technical plea based on Rule 3 A of the Rules which is not applicable we are of the view that the High Court had justification for not confirming the respondent
It however appears from the records that the respondent has improved much and indeed the report for the period from 24 10 1985 to 31 3 1986 shows that his performances for the said period were satisfactory
The subsequent report for the period from 1 4 1986 to 31 3 1987 also shows that on the whole his performances were satisfactory
Accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Full Bench
In the circumstances although we accept the contention made on behalf of the High Court that Rule 3 A of the Rules was not applicable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and that the question of confirmation of judicial officer was completely within the domain of control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution we are unable to accept the finding of the High Court that the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos
59  60 of 1982 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 2860 of 1985 should not be confirmed as Civil Judges
In view of the discussion made above we set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench in Civil Appeals Nos
59  60 of 1982 and also the impugned orders terminating the services of the appellants
The appellants are reinstated in service with arrears of pay since the date of termination to be paid within three months from date
So far as Civil Appeal No 2860 of 1985 is concerned we affirm the order of the Full Bench quashing the impugned order of termination of services of the respondent but not the reasons for such quash 500 ing and direct that for a period of three years the respondent shall be The appeals are disposed of as above
There will however be no order as to costs in any of them
NPV Appeals disposed of


Summary:
 The respondent a partnership firm carried on business termed as a Scheme for Investment
The Registrar of Firms Societies and Chits the appellant holding the view that the investment scheme of the respondent company fell within the prohibited category of prize chits as defined in section 2e of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banking Act 1978 seized all the documents of the company and directed the concerned banks not to have accounts in relation thereto
The respondent challenged the action of the appellant by a writ petition in the High Court
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition quashing the orders of the appellant
The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave
Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD The prize chit by a simple definition includes a scheme by which a person in whatever name collects moneys from individuals for the purpose of giving prizes and refunding the balance with or without premium after the expiry of a specified period
The reach and range of the definition of Prize Chit  is sweeping
The participation of any person in such chit or scheme has been prohibited the object being that people should not be attracted to invest their moneys in the hope of getting prizes or gifts
468A B Cl There is no doubt that the scheme of the company is primarily for the benefit of the promoter or the company at the cost of the subscribers
Section 2e of the Act was intended to cover all such arrangements or schemes
It is emphasized that the Act was intended to ban all kinds of prize chits where people part with their money and risk the chance of 457 getting prizes and gifts and to protect the people from exploitation
A Any scheme or arrangement in which a person agrees to lose or is make to part with a portion of his payment against the chance of getting any prize or gift should be considered as prize chit falling within the inclusive definition under Section 2e
The scheme of the company is nothing but prize Chit as defined under Section 2e of the Act
The conclusion of the High Court is patently erroneous and is unsustainable both on facts and law
The action of the Registrar appellant upheld
473E H 473A B OBSERVATION The Registrar of the firms will while taking action against the persons or firms under the Act take care to see that the members of the scheme are not denied their contributions or prises which they are legitimately entitled to if the prize chit is allowed to be run for the full term
473B C Srinivasa Enterprises and others vs Union of India etc  at 804 and Reserve Bank of India vs Peerless General Insurance and investment Co Ltd AIR referred to