IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1105 of 1989 Date of Order: 10.09.2008 Haryana State Electricity Board and Others ...Appellants Versus Dalbir Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilesh Bharadwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.M.Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The Haryana State Electricity Board, challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, dated 25.01.1989, reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1988 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Bhiwani.. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that as he had completed his period of probation, he could not be reverted from the post of Draftsman to the post of a Junior Draftsman. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a junior draftsman on 12.04.1979. Before he could complete his period of probation, as a Junior Draftsman, he was promoted to the post of draftsman on 14.11.1980 in the pay scale of junior draftsman. The letter of promotion stated that the appellant would be entitled to the regular scale of draftsman upon satisfactory completion of two years probation period. The respondent continued to work as a draftsman upto November, 1986, when the appellants sought to revert him to the post of junior draftsman, compelling him to file a suit. The suit was resisted by the appellants by asserting that as the respondent had not been regularised on the post of a draftsman and his work and conduct was unsatisfactory, they had every right to revert him to the post of junior draftsman. The learned trial Court after considering the pleadings framed the following issues: i) Whether the plaintiff is regular draftsman under the defendants as alleged?OPP ii) If issue No.1 is proved whether plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP iii) Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit?OPD iv) Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct?OPD v) Whether suit is pre-mature?OPD vi) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to the suit as alleged?OPD vii) Whether present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?OPD viii) Whether present suit is hit by principle of resjudicata?OPD ix) Relief. Upon appraisal of the evidence and after considering the arguments addressed by parties, the suit was dismissed by holding that as the respondent's work and conduct was unsatisfactory, the appellants had every right to direct his reversion. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.1989 accepted the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. It was held that as the appellant was allowed to complete the two years probation period, he stood automatically regularised and could, therefore, not be reverted to the post of a Junior Draftsman. Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent does not have an absolute right to promotion. His promotion to the post of draftsman was subject to his work and conduct being satisfactory. The work and conduct of the respondent was unsatisfactory and, therefore, the appellants sought to revert him to the post of junior draftsman. The first appellate Court, however, ignored relevant material on record and held that as the respondent had completed his probation period of two years, without any adverse order, as to his work and conduct, he could not be reverted to the post of junior draftsman. The first appellate court ignored the adverse entries in the annual confidential reports by holding that these were the reports, were neither preceded nor followed by any orders requiring the respondent to submit his explanation with respect to his work and conduct. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that as the appellant was allowed to complete the period of probation and in fact worked on the post of draftsman for three years beyond the period of probation, he could not be reverted to the post of junior draftsman. The outer limit for assessing his work and conduct expired on 14.11.1982. During this period, no adverse orders were passed or communicated. The respondent’s promotion, therefore, stood regularized by efflux of time. It is further submitted that the appellants failed to produce any evidence to establish that the respondent’s work and conduct was unsatisfactory during the period of probation. The remarks in the annual confidential reports were rightly disregarded as they were not preceded or followed by any adverse orders. It is, therefore, argued that as no question of law arises for consideration, the appeal be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and find no reason whether in law or in fact that would require interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent was admittedly appointed as a junior draftsman on 12.04.1979 and promoted to the post of draftsman on 14.11.1980 in the pay scale of a junior draftsman. His promotion was subject to the successful completion of a two year period of probation. It is not denied that the period of probation was not extended beyond two years and during this period, no orders were issued commenting adversely upon the work and conduct. In fact, the appellants failed to adduce, any evidence, in support of their emphatic stand that the work and conduct of the respondent, during the period of probation was unsatisfactory. As is apparent from the factual narrative of the case, the period of probation was allowed to expire without extension of the period and without adversely commenting upon the respondent’s work and conduct. The respondent was allowed to work unhindered from 1983 to 1986 on the post of a draftsman without any objection. The adverse annual confidential reports were neither preceded nor followed by any order extending the period of probation or questioning the work and conduct on any ground. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error and as no substantial question of law arises or has been framed, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. September 10, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE