Case: Kedar Nath Bahl Vs. State of Punjab &amp; Others

these orders extending the period of probation were irregular and illegal. Either he should have been discharged within the first six months of probation, or, if he was not so discharged he was entitled to automatic confirmation. We do not think that this contention is correct. The law on the point is now well settled. Where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or thre is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. At the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer. See: Narain Singh, Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, Civil Appeal No. 492 of 1963, D/- 29-1-1964 (SC). Accountant General Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior v. Beni Prasad Bhatnagar, Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1962, D/- 23-1-1964 (SC), G. S. Ramaswamy v. Inspector General of Police, Mysore State, Civil Appeals Nos. 972 to 977 of 1963, D/- 21-1-1964 = (reported in AIR 1966 SC 175 ). The terms of appointment do not show that the appellant would be automatically confirmed on the expiry of the first six months of probation nor is any rule brought to our notice which has the effect of confirming him in the post after six months of probation. The position of the appellant, therefore, till the abolition of the post of 4-11-1958 was that he continued to be a probationer and has no right to the post. It, therefore, follows that when the tenure of the post came to an end, he was automatically reverted to his original post as an Inspector on which he had the lien.10. The suggestion that since he had occupied a class I post till 4-11-1958 he should have been absorbed in an equivalent post like that of an Executive Engineer, has no merit at all. It is true that by the reversion to Class II post he suffers great pecuniary loss but that could not be helped because he must known when he applied for this temporary post that after all he was holding it for a temporary period and after the abolition of the post he was liable to be reverted to his original post. Though it is true that in the advertisement of the post it was stated that the post was "likely to continue" after 28-2-55, but that was no assurance that the post would be made permanent.11. The second ground of attack based on mala fides is as follows. According to the appellant, soon after he assumed charges of his new post he made disclosures of several irregularities which had taken place in the project and this made him a persona-non-grata with the senior Officers of his Department including the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer of the Capital Project. He also alleged that the Project Administration did not like his appointment as Landscape Architect, and every opportunity was taken to condemn him. Adverse Confidential Reports were made against him which, though at one stage were ordered to be expunged by the Government, were later restored. Since the Administration found no way of removing him from the post, they decided to abolish the post which he was holding though, in the opinion of the appellant, the post was essential and necessary to be continued. In other words, the appellants contention is that the Administration sought to achieve his removal from the post not by taking in a straight-forward manner disciplinary action against him but by maliciously abolishing the post. These allegations are denied on behalf of the State. According to the State the Capital Project itself was a temporary project and the post of the Landscape Architect was a temporary post. As a matter of fact in the very first instance in the advertisement for the post, it was stated to be for a short period namely till 28-2-1955. It was found in due course that the post was no longer useful and was abolished after the question of its continuance had been examined by the Special Committee consisting of Ch. Surajmal, Public Works Minister, Shri M. S. Randhava and Shri Swaroop Krishan. The Committee recommended that the continuance of the post was not necessary and it should be abolished forthwith. Government accepted this recommendation and discontinued the post, which till 4-11-1958, had been continued from time to time by orders extending its duration. The High Court has found no substance in the allegation of mala fides. If, in the interest of the Administration, the temporary post is abolished, the question as to what were the personal relations between the appellant and his superiors was irrelevant. Moreover, all that the appellant has been able to say is that his immediate superiors in the Department were hostile to him. But here we are concerned not with the action of his immediate superiors but the action of the Government. The decision to discontinue the post was the decision of the Government and it is not alleged in the Writ Petition that in taking this decision the Government acted mala fide. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that there is no substance in the allegation that the post was discontinued or abolished in order to punish the appellant.12. It is a tragedy that it has not been possible to utilize the services of a highly qualified Officer like the appellant in an appropriate post which could bring the best out of him.However, we can do no more than express our sympathy.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Though in the last note datedthe Revenue Minister had stated that the Government had ordered the appellants confirmation that was obviously a slip of memory. There was no Government order confirming the appellant. All that the Revenue Minister had done onwas to suggest to the Secretary that the appellant should be confirmed on the completion of his probation. That suggestion could not be implemented owing to the nature of the post which the appellant had held. Onwhen the Revenue Minister made the above note he was no longer in charge of the Capital Project. It is obvious that these notings by the Minister with regard to the confirmation of the appellant could not be implemented as under the rules the appellants confirmation in the temporary post of Landscape Architect was impossible. The appellant, theerfore, was not entitled to rely upon these notings for proving the fact that he had been actually confirmed when it is admitted that no effective order confirming him in that post was ever passed or communicated to him.9.It was next contended that even if it is assumed that he was not confirmed by the Government in the post, it must be held that he was automatically confirmed in the post after the first six months ofprobation. He was a Government servant before he accepted this post and under the terms of appointment already referred to, he was on probation for six months. The period of probation was over onIt is the contention of the appellant that on the expiry of this period of probation he was automatically confirmed. The record, however, shows that the probationary period was extended by the Government from time to time though the orders were made with retrospective effect. Theappellant contends that these orders extending the period of probation were irregular and illegal. Either he should have been discharged within the first six months of probation, or, if he was not so discharged he was entitled to automaticconfirmation. We do not think that this contention is correct. The law on the point is now well settled. Where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or thre is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. At the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer. See: Narain Singh, Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, Civil Appeal No. 492 of 1963, D/(SC). Accountant General Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior v. Beni Prasad Bhatnagar, Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1962, D/(SC), G. S. Ramaswamy v. Inspector General of Police, Mysore State, Civil Appeals Nos. 972 to 977 of 1963, D/= (reported in AIR 1966 SC 175 ). The terms of appointment do not show that the appellant would be automatically confirmed on the expiry of the first six months of probation nor is any rule brought to our notice which has the effect of confirming him in the post after six months of probation. The position of the appellant, therefore, till the abolition of the post ofwas that he continued to be a probationer and has no right to the post. It, therefore, follows that when the tenure of the post came to an end, he was automatically reverted to his original post as an Inspector on which he had the lien.10. The suggestion that since he had occupied a class I post tillhe should have been absorbed in an equivalent post like that of an Executive Engineer, has no merit at all. It is true that by the reversion to Class II post he suffers great pecuniary loss but that could not be helped because he must known when he applied for this temporary post that after all he was holding it for a temporary period and after the abolition of the post he was liable to be reverted to his original post. Though it is true that in the advertisement of the post it was stated that the post was "likely to continue" afterbut that was no assurance that the post would be madeHigh Court has found no substance in the allegation of mala fides. If, in the interest of the Administration, the temporary post is abolished, the question as to what were the personal relations between the appellant and his superiors was irrelevant. Moreover, all that the appellant has been able to say is that his immediate superiors in the Department were hostile to him. But here we are concerned not with the action of his immediate superiors but the action of the Government. The decision to discontinue the post was the decision of the Government and it is not alleged in the Writ Petition that in taking this decision the Government acted mala fide. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that there is no substance in the allegation that the post was discontinued or abolished in order to punish the appellant.12. It is a tragedy that it has not been possible to utilize the services of a highly qualified Officer like the appellant in an appropriate post which could bring the best out of him.However, we can do no more than express our sympathy.