Continuing In Service After Probation Period Doesn't Imply Automatic Confirmation Unless Expressly Provided Or In Exceptional Case: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that a person appointed on probation becomes a permanent employee only after the issue of an express order of confirmation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the appeal filed by a woman who was not confirmed to the post of stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge, Virajpet on completion of the probation period. It held,

“By mere expiry of the period of probation and continuing in service after the expiry of the period of probation, a civil servant does not automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of the service, unless the rules expressly provide for automatic confirmation.”

Appellant's counsel argued that the order of termination of her client from service is apparently stigmatic and she cannot be made to suffer termination from service by a stroke of pen after having completed all the departmental examination.

The bench however opined that an employee during the period of probation has lesser rights qua the employee whose probationary period has been successfully completed. "The object of placing an employee on probation is two fold: the employer will have an opportunity of assessing the suitability of the employee for the job in question and similarly, the employee too will have an occasion to assess the suitability of employment. During the said period both have an option as to continuation in employment," Court explained.

Thus rejecting the appellant's contentions the court said, “It has been a settled position of law although under the service rules probationary period is required to be treated as if it is substantive it is only limited for certain purposes under the civil services rules but a probationer cannot be treated as a person holding the spot substantively.”

Court said no rule showing automatic confirmation into service was shown to it. "We do not mean to say that there can be no case falling in the category of exception to this general rule of service jurisprudence,” it clarified.

Accordingly it held appellant failed to make out a case for invocation of exception to the rule and rejected the plea in limine.

Appearance: Advocate Vinod Kumar M for Appellant.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 368

Case Title: Kum Sowmya R AND Registrar General & Others

Case No: Writ Appeal No 1154 of 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment