http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  307 of 1998

PETITIONER: Mir Mohammad Khasim

RESPONDENT: Union of India and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2004

BENCH: Brijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.  

               The controversy in this appeal relates to the  question of deemed confirmation on successful completion  of period of probation in the service and  an order to that  effect having been passed by the employer, whereafter  nothing further was required to be done, except the formality  of passing an  order of confirmation.                 The appellant was appointed as ASI in the police  department of the State of Andhra Pradesh and was  promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Category-3 in  the year 1975.  He was further promoted as Deputy  Superintendent of Police Category-2 with effect from  1.3.1982. He was placed on probation.  Sometime later his  probation was terminated and he was reverted to his  erstwhile cadre which was challenged by filing a writ petition  in the High Court. The writ petition was allowed as a  consequence thereof, an order was issued on 6.10.1989  declaring that the appellant had satisfactorily completed  the  period of probation with effect from 27.1.1987 in relaxation of  Rule 7(e) of Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1966 (for  short ’the A.P.P.S.Rules’).   In the seniority list of the officers of the state police  service dated 1.6.1989, he was placed at serial no.103.  The  names of the private respondents were placed at serial  nos.118 and 125.  The eligible candidates, for selection to  the Indian Police Service, from the state police services,  were due for  consideration for which a selection was held  on 5.1.1990 and the select list for 1989 was prepared but the  name of the appellant did not appear in the list.  The private  respondents shown junior to the appellant in the seniority list  were considered and selected. The appellant was not  considered by the selection committee with a remark that he  was not yet confirmed.  This fact was verified by the Central  Administrative Tribunal by perusing  the record of the  selection in question. As a matter of fact, there is no denial  that the appellant was not considered for selection to the  cadre of Indian Police Service on the ground that he was not  confirmed.  However, according to the appellant, he would  be deemed to be confirmed in view of the order of the State  Government dated 6.10.1989 saying that the appellant had  satisfactorily completed the period of probation in the cadre  of Deputy Superintendent of Police Category 2.  The said  order of the State Government is reproduced below : "Home (Police.E) Department G.O.Rt.No.3245  Dated 6th October, 1989

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Read the following:- 1.G.O.Ms.No.39 Home (Police-E) dpt.    Dt.16.1.1982. 2.GO.Ms.No.406 Home (Police-E),     dt.3.3.1983 3.G.O.Rt.No.2923, Home (Police-E),    dt.20.10.1984. 4.G.O.Rt.No.579 Home (Police-E) Dpt.    Dt.22.3.1982.

ORDER: "Shri Mohd.Khasim, Asst.Commandant  (DSP-Category-3) was appointed by transfer  as Deputy Superintendent of Police,  Category-2 in the G.O.1st read above and  commenced probation with effect from 1-3- 1982.  His probation was terminated and he  was reverted as Asst.Commandant, though  equivalent cadre, which he held prior to his  appointment as Deputy Superintendent of  Police, Category-2, in the G.O.2nd read  above.  By virtue of High Court orders dated  10.10.1984 in W.P.M.P.No.1836 of 1984 in  W.P.No.1398 of 1984 he was reappointment  as Deputy Superintendent of Police category- 2 by revoking the orders of termination of  probation in G.O.3rd read above and allowed  to continue that Balance of Training.  The  duty period from 3-3-1983 to 19-11-1984 was  treated as duty in the   cadre on Deputy  Superintendent of Police, Category-2.

       Under Rule 6(a) of A.P.Police services  rules, he shall be on probation for a total  period of one year on duty within a  continuous period of two years.  Rule 7(e) of  the same rules, prescribes that a probationer  has to pass the tests prescribed in rule & 7(a)  at or before fifth half yearly examination held  after his appointment as Deputy  Superintendent of Police, Category-2.  Shri  Mohd.Khasim has passed the Departmental  Test-D(i) in the examination held in  September, 1986 and the result of the test  was received in Government on 27.1.1987.

       After careful consideration, under Rule  47 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service  Rules, The Governor of Andhra Pradesh  hereby relaxes Rules 7(e) of A.P.P.S. in  favour of Sri Mohd.Khasim, Deputy  Superintendent of Police, Category-2 and  under Rule 26 of A.P.State and Subordinate  Service Rules, Government hereby extend  the probation of Sri Mohd.Khasim as Deputy  Superintendent of Police, Category-2 up to  and inclusive of 27.1.1987 and declares that  he was satisfactorily completed his probation  in   the   cadre   of   Deputy Superintendent of  Police, Category-2 on the A.N.O.27.1.1987.   (By order and in the name of the Governor of  Andhra Pradesh) Sd/- P.V.Rangaiah Naidu, Principal Secretary to Government"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

(emphasis supplied) The case of the appellant is that the rules do not require  anything further to be done after successful completion of  period of probation and before confirmation of  the  concerned employee.  In such circumstances the  confirmation would be deemed to have been done as after  successful completion of the period of probation as it could  not be treated to be impliedly extended any further.                 The case of the respondent, however, is that in  view of provisions contained under rules 6 and 7 particularly  sub-rule (e) of Rule 7 of A.P.P.S. Rules, a further period of  three years had yet to be completed as probationary period  by the appellant with effect from 27.1.1987 in addition to a  period of one year so as to be entitled for confirmation as  Deputy Superintendent of Police Category 2. The period of  three years with effect from 27.1.1987 would have been  completed on 27.1.1990.  Therefore,  there was no occasion  to consider the appellant for selection to the Indian Police  Service in the year 1989.  Rules 6 and 7 of the A.P.P.S.rules  are quoted below: "6(a) Probation \026 Every person appointed to  a category in the service shall be on  probation, for a total period of two years on  duty within a continuous period of three  years, if recruited direct; and for a total period  of one year of duty within a continuous period  of two years, if recruited by transfer or  promotion.  Every Deputy Superintendent of  Police, Category-3 appointed to the post of  Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2,  shall be on probation for a total period of one  year on duty within a continuous period of  two years.

(b) A probationer in the category of Deputy  Superintendent of Police, Category-2 or  Category \026 3 shall be eligible to count, for  purpose of his probation, the duty rendered  by him in any post, the duties and  responsibilities which are declared by a  general or special order of the Government to  be equivalent to those attached to the post of  Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2  or as the case may be in Category 3.

(c) A probationer in the category of Deputy  Superintendent of Police, Category-2 or  Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-3  shall not be eligible to draw the first  increment until he passes the prescribed  tests and satisfactorily completes the period  of probation.  The postponement of  declaration of probation on account of non- passing of tests shall not however have the  effect of postponing future increments after  he has passed the prescribed tests.

7. Tests \026 (a) A person appointed to the  service by direct recruitment shall pass at or  before the fifth half-yearly examination held  after his appointment, an examination in \026

xxxx                    xxx                     xxx

(b) Deputy Superintendent  of Police,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Category-2 appointed   from the post of  Deputy Superintendent  of Police, Category-3  shall, if he has not already passed, pass the  tests prescribed in sub-rule (a) above, at or  before the fifth half-yearly examination held  after his appointment as Deputy  Superintendent  of Police, Category-2.

(c) Notwithstanding anything in the General  Rules but subject to the  exceptions specified  in sub-rule (d) \026

(i)     no person appointed by direct  recruitment shall be declared an  approved probationer unless and until  he has passed the examination in all  the subjects at or before the fifth half- yearly examination held after his  appointment as specified in sub-rule  (a); (ii)    if any such person has satisfactorily  completed the prescribed period of  probation and has been declared an  approved probationer, he shall be  deemed to have become a full  member of the service on and from  the date on which he has  satisfactorily completed the period of  probation; (iii)   if any such person fails to pass the  examination in any of the said  subjects as required by sub-rule (a)  he shall, by order, be discharged from  the service unless he is exempted  from passing the examination in any  such subjects or is given further time  for passing the examination; (d) if such a person has been exempted from  passing the examination in all or any of the  said subjects or has passed the said  examination within the further period or  periods allowed to him for passing the said  examination, he shall be declared to have  satisfactorily completed his probation, if  otherwise found suitable for such declaration,  and appointed a full member and shall count  his service for increments on and from such  date as may be determined by the State  Government, but such date shall not be  earlier than the date of the fifth half-yearly  examination held after his appointment to the  service.

(e) No person appointed as Deputy  Superintendent  of Police, Category-2, from  the post of Deputy Superintendent  of Police,  Category-3 shall be declared an approved  probationer in Category-2 unless and until he  has passed the examination in all the  subjects at or before the fifth half-yearly  examination held after his appointment as  specified in sub-rule (b).  Such a person  shall, render a further satisfactory service of  three years before he is confirmed as Deputy  Superintendent  of Police, Category-2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

besides the period of probation prescribed in  rule 6."

According to the learned counsel for the  respondent the appellant on successful completion of one  year’s period of probation and clearing the tests would be  declared as an approved probationer whereafter alone one  has to undergo further period of three years probation before  becoming entitled for confirmation in service.  By means of  order dated 6.10.1989 he was declared only as an approved  probationer w.e.f. 27.1.1987, therefore, as per rule 7(e) a  further period of three years would be counted from  27.1.1987 which period would be completed on 27.1.1990,  therefore, there was no occasion to submit that appellant  could be deemed to have been confirmed any time before  27.1.1990.  It is further submitted that there is no automatic  confirmation unless a specific order is passed confirming an  employee.   To further strengthen the latter submission it is  pointed out that no maximum period of probation has been  provided under the Rules in this case on expiry whereof, it  could be claimed that there would be automatic confirmation  of the appellant nor it has been provided that the period of  probation could not be extended beyond what is provided  under rules 6 and 7.  Therefore, even after four years  probationary period the appellant would only be treated to  have been continued on probation, unless specifically an  order of confirmation was passed. Ms.K.Amareshwari, learned senior counsel  appearing for respondent no.3 further submits that the whole  reading of the order dated 6.10.1989 granting relaxation to  the appellant would show that the relaxation was provided  only in so far it related to duration of period within which  written tests were required to be cleared by a probationer.   Rule 7(a) of the A.P.P.S.Rules provides for clearing the  prescribed tests at or before the 5th half yearly examination  held after his appointment,  while clause (b) of rule 7  provides that those who have been promoted from Deputy  Superintendent of Police Category 3 to category 2, in case  they had already not passed the tests prescribed in sub-rule  (a) at or before the 5th half yearly examination held  after his  appointment, shall do so accordingly on their appointment to  category 2; the appellant cleared the prescribed tests much  after a period of two and half years, namely, only in the  examination held in September, 1986 the result of which was  declared on 27.1.1987.  It is submitted that the relaxation  has been granted to the appellant only in respect of the  period of time during which he was required to clear the  tests.  In this   connection, our attention has been drawn to  the order dated 6.10.1989 where in the last but one  paragraph of the order it is mentioned that the appellant had  to pass the prescribed tests at or before 5th half yearly  examination held after his appointment but the appellant had  passed the tests in September, 1986.  Therefore, the  contention is that the order of relaxation pertains to the  period of time which has been extended in clearing the  paper and not in respect of the period of three years of  probation which has further to be undergone over and above  the period of one year of probation as provided under rule  6(a) of the A.P.P.S.Rules.  It is further submitted that the  appellant could be declared as an approved probationer only  after he had successfully completed one year’s period of  probation under rule 6(a) and had cleared the written tests at  or before the 5th half yearly examination and in view of latter  part of clause (e) of rule 7 of the A.P.P.S.Rules he has to  complete a further satisfactory service of three years before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

confirmation besides the period of probation prescribed in  rule 6.     On consideration of the submission made by   learned senior counsel for the respondent, we find it difficult  to read the order of relaxation,  in the manner sought to be  read by the respondent.  It is no doubt true that according to  rule 6 a promotee officer has to complete initially a period of  one year’s probation before he could be declared as an  approved probationer.  The other requirement is of clearing  the tests as prescribed under rule 7(a).  A further period of  three years satisfactory service is to be completed before  being confirmed in service as provided under latter part of  clause (e) of rule 7.  But it is not possible to confine the order  of relaxation to the period of clearing the tests and not in  respect of requirement of further period of three years,  besides one year’s period under rule 6(a).  In the last but  one paragraph of the order dated 6.10.1989 there is a  mention of the fact that the appellant had cleared the tests in  the examination held in September, 1986 result of which was  received by the Government on 27.1.1987.  In the next  paragraph thereafter there is a mention of relaxation of rule  7(e) of the A.P.P.S.Rules and rule 26 of the A.P.State and  Subordinate Service Rules.  The order further goes on to say  that the period of probation of the appellant was extended  thereby up to and inclusive of 27.1.1987.  After mentioning  the above facts the order declares that the appellant has  satisfactorily completed his probation in the cadre of Deputy  Superintendent of Police category 2.  As indicated earlier,  there is a specific mention of relaxation of "rule 7(e)" and  "under rule 26" of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules.  Therefore, it cannot be said that relaxation of rule 7(e) is  limited to first part of the said clause and it does not cover  the latter part.  As a matter of fact the requirement of  clearing the tests in five half yearly examinations is provided  in rule 7(b) and not in clause (e) of rule 7.  What is not  provided in rule 7(b) or elsewhere but only in sub-rule (e) is  contained in the latter part which provides for three years  further satisfactory service besides the period of probation  prescribed in rule 6.  The appellant was appointed as Deputy  Superintendent of Police category 2 on 1.3.1982 and the  declaration of satisfactory completion of period of his  probation is with effect from 27.1.1987.   It is a period of near  about 5 years.  We find it difficult to restrict the relaxation  provided in rule 7(e) to  only the first part of it ignoring the  latter part and there seems to be no reason  to do so.  The  declaration which the order of relaxation contains is that the  appellant had satisfactorily completed his probation in the  cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police category 2.  A vain  effort has been made to say that maybe the appellant may  not have completed one year’s period of initial probation  under rule 6, therefore, there could not be any declaration of  satisfactory completion of the period of three years after  period of one year in rule 6.  We have not been able to  appreciate the said submission as declaration of satisfactory  completion of period of probation under rule 7(e) is without  any strings and noticeably the said declaration of satisfactory  completion of period of probation is in the cadre of Deputy  Superintendent of Police category 2.  We, therefore, find no  merit in the submission that the order of relaxation may be  interpreted so as to confine it only to the time taken in  clearing the tests.  It is also to be noticed that the order  dated 6.10.1989 does not declare the appellant as an  "approved probationer" as tried to be submitted.  A bare  reading of the order shows that it relates to satisfactory  completion of period of probation in the cadre of Deputy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

Superintendent of Police category 2 without any restriction of  any kind.  Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel  appearing for the private respondents submits that the order  granting relaxation of service rules must be construed  strictly. It is submitted that the order dated 6.10.1989 should  be read as a whole and in doing so it would be clear that the  relaxation is under rule 26 of the A.P.State and Subordinate  Service rules.  That is to say in regard to the period of more  than five half yearly examinations in clearing the tests taken  by the appellant.  In support of strict construction of the  orders providing for relaxation from rules, reliance has been  placed upon a decision of this Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta  & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors., reported in (2000) 7 SCC  561.   Our attention has also particularly been drawn to  paragraph 28 of the decision where it is observed that there  can be no relaxation of basic or fundamental rules of  recruitment.  In that context reference to another decision of  this Court,  Keshav Chandra Joshi vs. Union of India, 1992  Suppl. (1) SCC 272 was made, where relaxation from the  rule requiring consultation with the Public Service  Commission was not accepted as such a condition was  treated to be mandatory.  This case would not be applicable  to the case in hand.  Learned senior counsel for the private  respondents has also submitted that rule empowering an  authority to relax the conditions of service etc. cannot be so  wide as to grant any kind of relaxation whatsoever.  It is  submitted that rule 47 has been worded in  very wide terms  and vests the authority with very wide powers.  In connection  with the above submission, suffice it to observe that the  order of relaxation was passed on 6.10.1989.  It was never  put under challenge. Neither by the present private  respondents nor by anyone else.  Even during the  proceedings before the Tribunal no such ground about the  validity of rule 47 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Rules  was put in issue.  We do not think it will be appropriate to  entertain the plea about the validity of rule 47 at this stage.   The other respondents have also not come forward with the  case that rule 47 is bad for vesting very wide powers in the  authority or that the order of relaxation is bad having gone  beyond the scope of rule 47.  If at all, such a plea  may  better be examined in any other  appropriate case.  Presently, we find that it is beyond the scope of this appeal.  Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that  the validity of the rule has already been upheld by this Court  in a case reported in AIR 1977 SC p.451, Government of  Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Shri D.Janardhana Rao & Anr.,  We, however, leave this point at this without going further  into the matter.                 The moot question which arises for consideration  is about the effect of the order of granting relaxation to the  appellant from rule 7(e) and the consequences which flow  from the said order.  According to the appellant on  successful completion of period of probation nothing further  is required to be done before confirming the officer.  All that  was required had been accomplished since the appellant  had cleared the tests as required under rule 6(b) as well as  has undergone the period of probation which has been  considered to be successful completion of period of  probation as per rule 7(e).  That being the position the  appellant shall be deemed to have been confirmed. Whereas  Ms.K.Amareshwari, learned senior counsel for the  respondent no.3 submits that unless an order of confirmation  is passed the appellant cannot be deemed to have been  confirmed.  It is further pointed out that the rules do not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

prescribe any maximum period of probation nor any  provision says that it shall not be extended beyond any given  period of time.  In such circumstances, it is submitted, the  law is settled that there will be no automatic confirmation  unless such an order is passed.  In our view, there cannot be  any dispute about the proposition that where no maximum  period of probation is provided there would be no automatic  confirmation of the employee on expiry of period of probation  unless an order is passed in that regard. In such cases it is  taken that the period of probation continues unless and until  an order of confirmation is passed. Our attention has been  drawn to a decision in the case of Commissioner of Police,  Hubli & Anr. vs. R.S.More, (2003) 2 SCC p.408.  In this case  the appointing authority was empowered to  extend the  period of probation up to certain prescribed limit but there  was a further  provision that mere expiry of the prescribed  period or extended period of probation would not entitle the  probationer to claim satisfactory completion of his probation.   Hence he would continued to be under probation and it  would not be treated as deemed  confirmation.  In  connection with this case it may be observed that the rule  itself provided for extension of period of probation and  thereafter that completion of  period of probation or extended  period of probation will not automatically entitle the  employee deemed to have been confirmed unless a specific  order in that regard is passed.  Hence the above decision  would not be of any help to the respondent. It may further be  observed that in the matter of period of probation and  confirmation it would always depend upon the language of  the rule on the point.  A reference has also been made to a  decision of this Court in the case of High Court of  M.P.through Registrar & Ors. vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar,  reported in   (2001) 7 SCC 161, more particularly to  paragraph 11 of the judgment which we beneficially quote as  under : "The question of deemed confirmation in  service jurisprudence, which is dependent  upon the language of the relevant service  rules, has been the subject-matter of  consideration before this Court, times without  number in various decisions and there are  three lines of cases on this point.  One line of  cases is where in the service rules or in the  letter of appointment a period of probation is  specified and power to extend the same is  also conferred upon the authority without  prescribing any maximum period of probation  and if the officer is continued beyond the  prescribed or extended period, he cannot be  deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there  is no bar against termination at any point of  time after expiry of the period of probation.   The other line of cases is that where while  there is a provision in the rules for initial  probation and extension thereof, a maximum  period for such extension is also provided  beyond which it is not permissible to extend  probation.  The inference in such cases is  that the officer concerned is deemed to have  been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum  period of probation in case before its expiry  the order of termination has not been passed.    The last line of cases is where, though under  the rules maximum period of probation is  prescribed, but the same requires a specific

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

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."

According to the learned senior counsel for the  respondent, the appellant falls in first category as well as last  namely where no maximum period of probation is prescribed  as well as where along with successful completion of period  of probation he has also to achieve some other  accomplishment as in the present case to clear prescribed  tests in five half yearly examinations. It may be pointed out that it is nobody’s case that  the appellant is entitled to be deemed to have been  confirmed in view of any condition that the period of  probation is not extendable beyond a certain limit in which  event an employee is deemed to have been confirmed.  We  feel that on this point a Constitution Bench decision of this  Court in State of Punjab  Vs. Dharam Singh, 1968 (3) SCR  p.1, providing that if an employee is continued after  maximum period of probation which under the rules cannot  be extended any further the employee shall be deemed to  have been confirmed, continues to hold the field.  But the  case in hand is not claimed to form the second category of  cases as quoted in para 11 of the decision in the case of  Satya Narayan Jhavar (supra).   Learned senior counsel for the respondent, rightly  points out that the case of the petitioner may fall in the first  and the third category of employees as indicated in para 11  of Jhavar’s case quoted above. That is to say the rules do  not prescribe any maximum period of probation beyond  which it cannot be extended and that along with successful  completion of period of probation the employee has also to  pass the required tests.  We feel, given by itself, without any  further facts the appellant would not be entitled to claim  deemed confirmation but for the fact that an order passed by  the competent authority dated 6.10.1989 intervenes which  makes a declaration that the appellant has satisfactorily  completed the period of probation.  As discussed in detail, in  the earlier part of the judgment the relaxation has been given  in regard to the period taken in clearing the examination as  well as in regard to rule 7(e) latter part of which provides that  three years further period of satisfactory probation in addition  to one year period as provided under rule 6. The relaxation  is therefore, from both the requirements, in that background   the question which thus arises for consideration is, in such  circumstances there would be deemed confirmation of the  employee or not.  In our view, this is a category of cases  other than those three mentioned in paragraph 11 in the  case of Satya Narayan Jhavar (supra).  The logic behind not  treating a probationer deemed to be confirmed    on  completion of period of probation is that unless there is an  order of confirmation he would be taken to be continuing on  probation. But here we are faced with a situation where the  state government itself has given a declaration that the  appellant has satisfactorily completed the period of probation  in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police category 2.   That being the position it cannot be said that despite the  above said order dated 6.10.1989 the appellant could still be  treated to be continuing on probation only for the reason that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

no specific order of confirmation has been passed.  It will  rather be self-contradictory in terms. The inconsistency  cannot co-exist.  Either the employee has successfully  completed the period of probation or he may still be in the  process of successful completion of probation even though  the period may run beyond the period prescribed for the  purpose.  After successful completion of the period of  probation and any other condition or requirement as may be  prescribed under the rules nothing else is required to be  done and the only corollary to follow is that with successful  completion of period of probation the incumbent would be  deemed to have been confirmed.  It would have been a  different matter if the appellant had only successfully  completed the period of probation but had not yet cleared  the tests as prescribed under rule 6(b) because in that case  there was yet another hurdle to be crossed but as seen in  the discussion held earlier, the appellant has satisfied both  the conditions namely, successful completion of period of  probation as well as he cleared the tests as prescribed under  the rules.  Both the conditions having been complied with  and a declaration to that effect having been made under the  orders of the State in relaxation of the rules nothing else  remained to be done.  At this stage it may also be observed  that in the case of Dayaram Dayal vs. State of M.P., (1997) 7  SCC 443, apart from the condition of completion of period of  probation the condition regarding clearing of the prescribed  departmental examinations was overlooked.  It was,  therefore, found that mere completion of period of probation  was not enough without passing prescribed departmental  examination.  Thus, the observation made in the case of  Satya Narayan Jhavar(supra) in relation to the case of  Dayaram Dayal (supra) that it does not lay down the correct  law will have no effect, so far the present case is concerned. In view of the discussion held above, the position  that clearly emerges is that in absence of the order dated  6.10.1989 granting relaxation to the appellant in respect of  rules 6(a) and 7(e) the appellant would not have been in a  position to claim the benefit of deemed confirmation.  But  once that relaxation has been granted and he is taken to  have cleared the tests in time and it was declared that he  would successfully completed the period of probation no  other formality had to be undergone, thus he would  inevitably be deemed to be confirmed.  In this view of the  matter, the appellant was unreasonably put out of the  consideration for selection to the cadre of Indian Police  Service for the year 1989. Ms.K.Amareshwari, learned senior counsel  appearing for the respondent submitted that the Central  Administrative Tribunal had held that the question of  confirmation in the state services could not be considered by  it, therefore, the matter may either be remanded to the  Central Administrative Tribunal or the appellant may be  allowed to seek his remedy regarding confirmation before  the State Services Tribunal.  We feel that the whole matter is  before us and all the parties have made their submissions  relating to all aspects of the matter.  We don’t think it would  be an appropriate case for remanding it to any Tribunal at  this late stage when the appellant has already retired from  service.  However, this point has not been further pursued by  the learned senior counsel for the respondent and we feel  rightly.   In the result, the order passed by the Central  Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are  directed to consider the case of the appellant for selection to  the Indian Police Service for the year 1989 and in case he is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

selected he shall be entitled to notional promotions and  financial benefits only without affecting the position of the  private respondents in any manner whatsoever, which shall  be continued to be maintained treating their selection for  Indian Police Service in  the  year 1989.   Parties to bear their own costs.