CW 13908/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.13908/2009 Jal Singh Meena Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 09/11/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Anand Sharma, for petitioner Petitioner having been appointed as Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector after following procedure prescribed under Rules vide order dt.28/04/03, initially was placed on probation of two years – in course whereof, adverse remarks in the year 2004-05 were recorded in his annual confidential report and communicated vide letter dt.12/12/2005. However, taking his over-all service, probation period was extended; however, he was granted benefit of regular pay scale with increments upon completion of period of probation as is evident from order dt.08/07/08 (Ann.9). As regards adverse remarks recorded in his ACR of year 2004-05, petitioner submitted representation which was rejected vide order dt.04/08/09. Counsel submits that initially period of probation was of two years and no extension beyond it would have been ordered; as such very order dt.29/06/07 extending period of probation is wholly arbitrary and in violation of Scheme of Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service CW 13908/09 //2// Rules, 1963 (“Rules, 1963”). Counsel further submits that R.29 read with R.30 of Rules, 1963 clearly postulates that if probationer has completed initial period of probation, specific order regarding extension has to be passed during or at the end of probation period, which indisputably has not been passed; as such very order of extension of period of probation is arbitrary and bad in law. Counsel further submits that rejection of his representation against adverse remarks recorded in ACR of year 2004-05 vide order dt.04/08/2009 is also arbitrary as no reasons have been assigned by the authority while rejecting his representation. In the opinion of this Court, submission made by Counsel is without merit for the reason that R.26 read with R.29 of Rules, 1963 clearly envisages that initial period of probation in case appointment is through direct recruitment shall be of two years but on account of unsatisfactory service, it can be extended for a further period of two years under proviso to R.30 and that apart, for the purposes of confirmation, it is not merely by implication and the authority has to examine the record of service, and if the incumbent has qualified departmental examination or training, CW 13908/09 //3// if any prescribed under scheme of Rules, can be considered for confirmation U/r 31 of Rules, 1963. However, in the instant case, period of probation was extended due to unsatisfactory service of petitioner as such extension vide order dt.29/06/07 was in consonance with R.30 of Rules, 1963. As regards confirmation, specific order is required to be passed by appointing authority U/r 31, that too on completion of satisfactory service during or at the end of the period of probation and the confirmation cannot be merely by implication or immediately on completion of total period of service as probationer. However, as regards adverse remarks impugned, presently no prejudice can be said to have been caused to petitioner since it can be considered at the stage whenever he come up within zone of consideration for promotion and if the alleged adverse remarks of year 2004-05 are taken note of while being considered for further promotion, which results in causing prejudice at a later stage, he would always be free to assail these adverse remarks before appellate Tribunal under the Act, 1976 as held by Full Bench of this Court in Tayyab Ali Vs. CW 13908/09 //4// State of Rajasthan (1988(2) RLR p.1). This court does not find any justification to interfere under Art.226 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/ 13908CW09-Nov9-DsACR.doc