STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected appeals raise a common question of construction of Rule 6 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961. Before October 1, 1957, Dharam Singh and Dev Raj, the respondents to these appeals, were junior teachers in District Board Schools. The District Board schools were provincialised, and the services of the respondents were taken over by the Punjab State with effect from October 1, 1957 in pursuance of a scheme of provincialisation of Local Bodies schools in the State. On February 13, 1961, the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution framed the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961 regulating the conditions of service of the teaching staff taken over by the State Government from the local authorities. Rule 1 provides that the rules will be deemed to have come into force with effect from October 1, 1957. Rule 3 created the Punjab Educational (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Services consisting of the posts shown in Appendix A. It is common case that the posts held by the respondents are included in Appendix A and carry time scales of pay Rule 6 is in these terms:

(2.) The High Court found that the respondents were officiating in permanent posts against permanent vacancies as contemplated by Rule 6 (1) , and that on the coming into force of the rules, they must be deemed to have held their posts under Rule 6 (1) on probation in the first instance for one year from October 1, 1957. The correctness of these findings is not disputed by the appellants. The High Court also held that in the circumstances of these cases, on the completion of three years' period of probation on October 1, 1960 the respondents must be deemed to have been confirmed in their appointments. The appellants attack this finding. They submit that in the absence of formal orders of confirmation the respondents must be deemed to have continued in their posts as probationers. In the alternative, they submit that on completion of three years' period of probation, the respondents must be deemed to have been discharged from service and re-employed as temporary employees. We are unable to accept these contentions.

(3.) This Court has consistently held that when a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the period without any specific order of confirmation he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only, in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules. In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a substantive right to the post, and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation it is not Possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed. This view was taken in Sukhbans Singh v State of Punjab, (1963) 1 SCR 416 at pages 424-426, G. S. Ramaswamy vs. Inspector-General of Police, Mysore State, Bangalore, (1964) 6 SCR 279 at pages 288-289, Accountant-General, Madbya Pradesh. Gwalior vs. Beni Prasad Bhatnagar. Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1962, D/- 23-1-1964 (SC) . D. A. Lyall v Chief Conservator of Forests, U. P., Civil Appeal No 259 of 1963, D/- 24-2-1965 (SC) and State of U. P. v Akbar Ali, (1966) 3 SCR 821 at pages 825-826 . The reason for this conclusion is that where on the completion of the specified period of probation the employee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take in the absence of anything to the contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the service rules, is that the initial period of probation has been extended by necessary implication. In all these cases, the conditions of service of the employee permitted extension of the probationary period for an indefinite time and there was no service rule forbidding its extension beyond a certain maximum period.