Continuation of Service beyond Probation without Confirmation Constitutes Violation of Law
Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. Vs. J.A.J Vasu Sena & Anr. [21/08/2019]— In the referred case the Division Bench of the SC held that there can be no deemed confirmation of service and mere continuation of the services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not amount to a deemed confirmation of service. It is only upon the issuance of an order of confirmation by the appointing authority that a probationer is confirmed in service.
The Court further held that the continuation of the services of a probationer by the appointing authority beyond the maximum permissible period of probation, constitutes a violation of law and the defying management must be put to terms.
The Court also held that while there can be no deemed confirmation in the favour of the probationer respondent, the relief can be suitably moulded by an award of ex-gratia compensation as a probationer who has spent valuable years of his life and may now be overaged to get suitable employment elsewhere must not be left in the lurch. The Court also observed that an institution must either issue confirmation of service or remove the probationer to draw a balance between the interests of the appointing authority (which is to ensure the quality of service in the institution) and the interests of probationers (to give chance to the probationer to search for another appropriate employment within the particular age which is generally available for entry into any employment).
The SC directed, in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, that the appellants shall pay over to the first respondent a sum of INR 5,00,000 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry an interest of 9% per annum till the date of realisation.
Details of the case may be visited at: https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/40804/40804_2018_12_1505_16240_Judgement_21-Aug-2019.pdf
