M. Rama Kumar vs Director General, Cisf.
1994 Latest Caselaw 236 Del

ORDER

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. The petitioner was directly appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Clerk/Typist) in the CISF with effect from February 20, 1986. He completed his probation with effect from February 19, 1988. In this regard an order was passed by the Commandant, CISF on June 8, 1989 and the order clearly states that the petitioner completed his probationary period satisfactorily on February 19, 1988. Despite the completion of the period of probation, the petitioner was not confirmed till June 1, 1990 on the ground that the DPC did not consider him fit to be confirmed before that date.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to be confirmed with effect from February 19, 1988 when he completed his probation. On the order hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the question of confirmation had to be considered by the Departmental promotion Committee on the basis of ACRs of the petitioner recorded during the probationary period which contained adverse entries.

3. I have examined the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

4. Rule 19 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 dealing with the probation reads as under :

" (a) All appointments by direct recruitment or promotion shall be on probation for two years subject to the provisions that the appointing authority may extent this period in special cases.

(2) The appointing authority shall, on the expiry of the period of such probation or such extended period, pass an order declaring that the probationer has completed the period of probation satisfactorily and is suitable for confirmation in that rank. If he considers him unsuitable, the probationer shall be liable to be discharged in the case of a direct recruit or revert to his substantive post in the case of a promotee."

5. According to the above Rule all appointments by direct recruitment are to be on probation for a period of two years subject to the provision that the appointing authority may extend this period on special cases. On the expiry of the period of probation or extended period as the case may be, if the appointing authority finds the probationer to appointing authority finds the probationer to have satisfactorily completed the period of probation it is required to make a declaration to that effect and at the same time pass an order of confirmation; as satisfactory completion of probation implies that the probationer fulfillls the condition of satisfaction which in turn is based upon his suitability for the job. In case the appointing authority considers the probationer unsuitable, he shall be liable to be discharged, if he is a direct recruit or he shall be reverted to his substantive post, in case he is a promotee. In other words, if the probationer is unsuitable that event he cannot be declared to have completed his probation satisfactorily and then the question of confirmation also does not arise. But once a probationer is found to have completed the probationary period satisfactorily, the confirmation follows automatically. It is not disputed that the respondent passed an order dated June 8, 1989 declaring the petitioner to have completed the period of his probation with effect from February 19, 1988. This order also indicates that the petitioner had satisfactorily completed the said period. In view of this order, it is not open to the respondent to contend that the petitioner was not confirmed before June 1, 1990 because there were adverse remarks in his ACRs during his probationary period. Once the petitioner was said to have completed his probationary period satisfactorily, he cannot be considered unsuitable for confirmation. The confirmation of an officer must be simultaneous with the completion of his period of probation. In Sewa Singh v. Union of India. 1991 Lab IC 28, the Supreme Court held that on successful completion of the period of probation by a probationer, confirmation follows automatically. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is deemed to have been confirmed with effect from February 19, 1988. Accordingly the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner to have been confirmed as Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from February 19. 1988 and consider him for the next higher post of Sub-Inspector on the due date.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that some of the juniors of the petitioner have been promoted to still higher ranks. If that is so, the respondent is also directed to hold review DPCs and consider the case of the petitioner as well for the higher posts on which his juniors have been appointed.

7. With these observations and directions, the writ petitions stands disposed of but with no order as to costs.

8. Order accordingly.