Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which had quashed the reversion of a Cooperative Societies employee. The respondent was promoted as an Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies by proceedings dated March 21, 1990, under Rule 10 of the Punjab State Co-operative Service (Class II) Rules, 1958. Rule 10 provided that all members of the service remain on probation for two years initially, with government discretion to count identical cadre or higher post service, and further provisos for promoted members. The rule also provided for confirmation if a vacancy exists and work and conduct are satisfactory, extension of probation not exceeding three years in total, and reversion for unsatisfactory performance. The respondent completed probation on November 25, 1992, but his probation was extended from time to time. A show cause notice was issued on September 15, 1993, and after considering the reply, an order was passed on February 11, 1994 reverting him to his substantive post. The respondent filed a writ petition, and the High Court allowed it, holding that since he was not reverted before expiry of three years, he must be deemed to have been confirmed, making the reversion order bad in law. The High Court did not express any opinion on adverse remarks. The State appealed, contending that Rule 10 requires a positive order of confirmation and that the three-year outer limit does not confer deemed confirmation. The respondent argued that the rules provide an outer limit of three years, and because he was not reverted within that period, he must be deemed confirmed. The Supreme Court rejected the respondent's contention, holding that sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 clearly envisages a positive order of confirmation. The three-year outer limit is an enabling provision to allow the probationer to continue in service without reversion or discharge, but it does not mean automatic confirmation. The rule itself requires a positive order of confirmation; absent such an order, the probationer may continue in service but is not deemed confirmed. The Court noted adverse remarks for 1991 and 1992, and that probation was extended further as admitted by the respondent. However, because the authorities extended the probation period and gave the respondent a chance to improve during 1993-94, that subsequent period was not considered before reverting him. The Court directed the appointing authority to consider whether the respondent is fit to be confirmed based on his performance for the subsequent period, and if found satisfactory, pass appropriate orders of confirmation; if the record for 1993-94 is not satisfactory, appropriate orders may be passed and communicated. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation and Confirmation - Deemed Confirmation - Punjab State Co-operative Service (Class II) Rules, 1958, Rule 10 - The respondent, promoted as Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, was reverted after adverse remarks; the High Court held deemed confirmation due to non-reversion within three years; the Supreme Court held that Rule 10(3) requires a positive order of confirmation and the three-year outer limit is enabling, not automatic, allowing continuation of probation without reversion but not conferring confirmed status. Held that completion of probation period does not amount to deemed confirmation absent an express order (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Extension of Probation and Reversion - Consideration of Extended Period - Punjab State Co-operative Service (Class II) Rules, 1958, Rule 10 - The authorities extended probation and gave the respondent a chance to improve during 1993-94, but that period was not considered before reversion; the Court remitted the matter to the appointing authority to consider subsequent performance before deciding confirmation, and if unsatisfactory, to pass appropriate orders. Held that extended probation period's performance must be considered before reversion (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a probationer under Rule 10 of Punjab State Co-operative Service (Class II) Rules, 1958 is deemed to be confirmed upon completion of the maximum three-year probation period without an express order of confirmation, and whether the reversion order was valid when the probation period had been extended and adverse remarks existed.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; appointing authority directed to consider subsequent performance for 1993-94 for possible confirmation, failing which appropriate orders may be passed; no costs.
Law Points
- Probation does not automatically result in confirmation
- Positive order of confirmation required under Rule 10
- Three-year outer limit is enabling not mandatory
- Extended probation period must be considered before reversion
- Adverse remarks justify non-confirmation and reversion
