Extension of probation after expiry of maximum prescribed period is invalid; deemed confirmation applies under Rule 18.

The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 20.11.2018 under a probation period of two years on duty within a continuous three-year period

During this period, he was awarded a minor punishment of postponement of increment on 18.03.2021

On 03.11.2021, a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC was registered against him, leading to his suspension

While a separate departmental enquiry was stayed by the High Court in 2022, the respondents issued orders on 08.12.2023 and 09.01.2024 retrospectively extending his probation by six months effective from 2021

Finally, via orders dated 26.05.2025 and 31.05.2025, the respondents terminated his probation and discharged him from service citing unsatisfactory performance under Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996

1. Whether the retrospective extension of the petitioner’s probation period after he had completed more than five years of service is valid under law

2. Whether the petitioner is deemed to have completed his probation satisfactorily under Rule 18 of the TS & SS Rules, 1996, rendering the termination order illegal

The court applied Rule 17(a)(ii) and Rule 18 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996

Rule 18(b)(ii) stipulates that if no order is passed within one year of the expiry of the prescribed or extended probation period, the probationer is deemed to have completed probation satisfactorily with retrospective effect

The court further relied on the precedent of Dayaram Dayal v. State of M.P. (1997) 7 SCC 443, which established that once a maximum period of probation is prescribed or expires without extension, an employee is deemed confirmed

The court observed that the petitioner was appointed in 2018 and the maximum three-year probation period expired on 19.11.2021

Although the respondents attempted to extend the probation retrospectively via orders issued in 2023 and 2024, the court found such late actions lacked legal significance because the petitioner had already crossed the one-year "deeming" threshold provided in Rule 18(b)(ii)

The court reasoned that since the petitioner continued in service for over seven years and no valid extension or discharge was order within the statutory time frame after the initial probation, he earned the status of a "deemed" approved probationer

Consequently, he could not be summarily discharged under Rule 17(a)(ii) as if he were still a probationer

The court also noted that using a stayed criminal case as a ground for discharge during "deemed" regular service was arbitrary

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the termination orders dated 26.05.2025 and 31.05.2025, as well as the retrospective extension orders of 2023 and 2024. The respondents are directed to continue his services with all consequential benefits. No orders as to costs.