T.S. Doabia, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning Annexure A-5. By this order the Vice Chancellor of the University in the exercise of power vested in him under section 52(1) of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 has put an end to the service tenure of the petitioner. Para 10(a) of the Statute 31 of the University Regulations have also been relied upon. In this order the status of the petitioner has been described as probationer. This order is being impugned in the petition.
2. Brief facts for the purposes of disposal of this petition be noticed as under :-
The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer vide order dated 17th June, 1986. This is Annexure A-1. Clause 3 of the order is relevant and be noticed :
“The appointment will be on probation for a period of two years which can be extended by a further period of one year.
A perusal of the aforementioned clause indicates that the petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of two years. This period could be extended by a further period of one year. It is not in dispute that the period of probation as fixed in Annexure A-l came to an end on 14th July, 1988. This is because the petitioner is said to have joined service on 15th July, 1986. No order extending the period of probation was passed before 14th July, 1988. However, an other order exists on file. This is dated 22nd November, 1988. By this the Registrar of the University extended the period of probation by one year. The order was given retrospective effect with effect from 14th July, 1988.
3. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner are as under :-
(i) that the period of probation came to an end on 14th July, 1988;
(ii) no order extending the probation was passed before this date;
(iii) subsequent retrospective extension of probationary period is totally unknown to law and cannot curtail the rights of the petitioner.
4. If above extension is excluded then the status of the petitioner would not be that of a probationer. Therefore, the act of respondents in treating the petitioner as probationer cannot be said to good in law. The probationary period of two years came to an end on 14th July, 1988. There is no dispute qua this. On that date the petitioner would cease to be a probationer and would acquire such right temporary or quasi-permanent or permanent depending upon nature of vacancy available. If a permanent vacancy was available he would require permanent status. If permanent post not available, he would acquire temporary status. In this case, nothing can be said with certainty as to whether a permanent vacancy existed or the petitioner could acquire permanent status or not. However, one thing is certain. The petitioner could not be treated as a probationer.
5. Once it is concluded that the petitioner ceased to be a probationer on 14th July, 1988 and that this period could not be extended after five months with retrospective effect, then the further conclusion that authority passing order Annexure P-5 has proceeded on wrong premises is inevitable. This would be a case indicating lack of application of mind. As such, order Annexure P-5 is quashed leaving the respondents to pass fresh order as per. rules.
6. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs. Costs Rs. 500/- (five hundred). Security if paid, be refunded to the petitioner as per rules.