A Rule Requiring a Formal Confirmation Order Prevents Ipso Facto Deemed Confirmation After the Probationary Period.

The Respondent, Virendra Singh, was appointed as a Senior Field Assistant (Motor Transport) in R&AW on August 19, 2014, with a two-year probation period

His probation was extended by one year until August 18, 2017, due to pending legal proceedings, pursuant to Rule 140(3) of the R&AW (RC&S) Amendment Rules, 2008

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), in OA 4638/2018, ruled that since the rules prescribed a maximum probation period of two years, the Respondent was deemed to have been confirmed ipso facto upon completion of that period

The Union of India challenged this order via a writ petition, arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider the specific rules governing confirmation

1. Whether the Respondent can be deemed to have been automatically confirmed in his post upon the completion of the maximum prescribed period of probation

2. Whether Rule 144 of the R&AW Rules, 1975 (as amended) mandates a formal satisfaction/order by the Appointing Authority for confirmation, thereby precluding "deemed confirmation"

Rule 140 of the Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre and Service) Rules, 1975, as amended in 2008, which limits the total probation extension to one year, except where departmental or legal proceedings are pending

Rule 144 of the 1975 Rules, which stipulates that confirmation occurs only where a probationer has completed their period "to the satisfaction of the Head of the Organization or the Appointing Authority"

This Rule establishes that confirmation is subject to the subjective satisfaction of the authority rather than a mere lapse of time.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was predicated on the theory of ipso facto deemed confirmation based on the maximum duration of probation under Rule 140

The Court reviewed Rule 144 during the writ proceedings—which requires the "satisfaction" of the Appointing Authority for confirmation—the Court reasoned that the Tribunal had not had the opportunity to evaluate the interplay between the probation limits and the requirement for a formal satisfaction of service quality

The Court found that the legal basis for the Tribunal’s order was incomplete and required reconsideration in light of the full statutory framework

The matter was remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration of OA 4638/2018, specifically to determine the applicability and effect of Rule 144 on the Respondent's status

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the final merits of the "deemed confirmation" claim and directed parties to appear before the Tribunal on July 3, 2026