Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed by an Assistant Professor seeking confirmation in her post after nearly seven years of probation. The employer was a Sanskrit college run by a managing committee, affiliated with Central Sanskrit University and governed by UGC Regulations. On 18 April 2018, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (English) on probation for two years. She joined on 20 June 2018 and completed probation on 20 April 2020. Despite no adverse assessment, the management did not issue a confirmation order. The petitioner sent multiple emails and a formal letter between April 2021 and October 2021 requesting confirmation. The in-charge principal forwarded the request to the chairman. On 4 December 2021, the in-charge principal wrote to the chairman for guidance. On 5 December 2021, the chairman emailed the principal stating that after studying the high-level committee report and with approval of the Central Sanskrit University, the confirmation letter may be issued. However, no confirmation followed. Petitioner sent reminders in July 2023, but still no action. When the writ petition was filed in 2024, the petitioner had been working as a probationer for 6 years and 10 months. The main question was whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed confirmation and a direction to the respondents to issue a confirmation order, given the prolonged probation without any extension order or adverse finding. The petitioner relied on UGC Regulations 2018, which prescribe maximum probation of two years and oblige the employer to confirm within 45 days of completing probation. She cited State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh to argue that where maximum probation period is fixed and exceeded without confirmation, the employee is deemed confirmed. The management contended that the confirmation letter was not issued because approval from the Central Sanskrit University was not received. The Union of India stated that the petitioner was appointed by the management, who alone was responsible for issuing the confirmation. The Bombay High Court found the management’s contention untenable because the chairman’s own email showed that approval had been granted. The court examined UGC Regulations, particularly clauses 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3, and noted that probation could not exceed two years. The court applied the ratio in Dharam Singh, holding that when an employee continues beyond the maximum probationary period without an express order of extension or confirmation, he is deemed confirmed by implication. The court expressed shock and said the treatment of the petitioner as a probationer for nearly seven years amounted to exploitation and violated basic norms of fair treatment. The court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayers (a) and (b), effectively directing the respondents to issue the confirmation order and recognizing the petitioner's deemed confirmation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation and Confirmation - UGC Regulations, 2018 Clauses 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 - The minimum period of probation for a teacher shall be one year extendable by a maximum of one more year in case of unsatisfactory performance; confirmation shall be within 45 days after completion of probation. The petitioner completed probation of two years without any extension order or adverse communication, yet continued as a probationer for nearly seven years. Held that the employer’s obligation to confirm was triggered. (Paras 4(b),5,7) B) Service Law - Deemed Confirmation - Principle in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh - University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 - When service rules fix a maximum probation period and the employee is allowed to continue beyond that period without express confirmation, the employee is deemed confirmed by implication. Held that the petitioner, having completed over six years as a probationer, is deemed confirmed, and the employer cannot rely on procedural lapses to deny confirmation, especially when internal approval was granted. (Paras 8,9,11,13) C) Employment Law - Exploitation and Fair Treatment - Article 226, Constitution of India - The court expressed shock at the prolonged probation of a teacher, terming it exploitation and violative of fair treatment expected from an institution inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings. Held that such conduct warrants judicial intervention to prevent injustice. (Paras 3,13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee who has completed the maximum period of probation as per UGC Regulations and continued to serve without any order of confirmation or extension is entitled to be deemed confirmed and whether the employer can be compelled to issue a formal confirmation order.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), directing the respondents to issue an order of confirmation to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- deemed confirmation
- maximum probation period
- UGC Regulations 2018
- State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh
- exploitation of employee
- writ of mandamus
