JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Following substantial questions of law were formulated at the time of admission of appeal:-
(i) Whether the period under suspension is to be counted as period rendered by the employee under probation as provided under Regulation 21 of the Ministerial Staff Regulations of 1962?
(ii) Whether in the absence of specific order passed by the authority under Regulation 23 of the Regulations of 1962 can any employee by fiction claim to be automatically confirmed by deemed fiction?
2. Contextual fact depict that the plaintiff respondents (for ‘short plaintiff’) was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (for short ‘LDC’) in the services of defendant appellant (for short ‘defendant’) on December 2, 1970. He was further promoted as Accounts Clerk on February 3,1976. He appeared in the examination held for the post of Accountant and was successful in the examination, consequently was appointed as Accountant vide order dated September 9, 1977 on probation as provided under Rule 21 of the RSEB Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962 (for short ‘1962 Regulations’). While the plaintiff was working as Accountant on probation he was placed under suspension vide order dated April 27, 1978 and since his services during the period of probation were not found satisfactory, the plaintiff was reverted to the substantive post of Accounts Clerk vide order dated March 2,1980. Against the said order of reversion the plaintiff filed a regular suit in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, wherein the plaintiff prayed that in view of completion of 18 months services, pursuant to Regulation 21 of 1962 Regulations, he became automatically confirmed with effect from July 24, 1979 and since the order of reversion was punitive and made without giving him the opportunity of hearing and without conducting the inquiry, it was illegal. In the written statement the defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit. As many as four issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Plaintiff, in support of his pleadings examined himself, whereas Damodar Prasad Dw. 1 was examined by the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed on January 28, 1993 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) No. 4 Jaipur City. Regular civil first appeal preferred against the said decree was also dismissed on August 28,1993 by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City. Hence this second appeal.
3. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that since no order of confirmation was passed the plaintiff could not have been deemed to have been confirmed. Reliance is placed on High Court of M.P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar , wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated thus:-
The last line of cases is where, through under the rules a maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same requires a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even if the maximum period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor has the person concerned passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired.
4. On behalf of the plaintiff reliance is however placed on State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh , wherein Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the case of a probationer who officiated on permanent post and was allowed to continue on that post beyond the maximum period of probation, held as under:-
Where the service rules fix a certain period of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended, and an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation is allowed to continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation without an express order of confirmation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that post as a probationer by implication. The reason is that such an implication is negatived by the service rule forbidding extension of the probationary period beyond the maximum period fixed by it. In such a case, it is permissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue in the post on completion of the maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by implication.
5. The order of suspension as well as reversion passed by the defendant against the plaintiff was illegal. The plaintiff could not have been reverted without initiating inquiry in an arbitrary manner. Both the courts below placed reliance on the ratio indicated in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh (supra) and decreed the suit of plaintiff. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was permissible to draw the inference that the plaintiff after allowing by the defendant to continue in the post on completion of the maximum period of probation, had been confirmed in the post by implication. The defendant could not have perpetuated illegality by misinterpreting 1962 Regulations. I am of the considered opinion that after completion of 18 months service the plaintiff stood automatically confirmed w.e.f. July 24, 1979.
6. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.