Probationers Do Not Acquire Deemed Confirmation Status Without an Express Order of Regularization Under Applicable Service Rules

The applicant was appointed as a 'Bootmaker' in a temporary capacity on 01.04.2015

His appointment letter stipulated a two-year probation period, which the respondents extended by one year (until 31.03.2018) due to unsatisfactory performance

The applicant remained absent from duty on several occasions citing personal reasons and illness

Consequently, the respondents issued a termination order dated 17.05.2018 (effective from 01.04.2018) under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965

The applicant challenged this termination, claiming he was a "deemed confirmed" employee after the initial two years and that his termination required a full disciplinary inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

1. Whether the applicant can be considered "deemed confirmed" in service upon the expiry of the initial two-year probation period

2. Whether the respondents were required to conduct a formal disciplinary inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, before terminating a probationer

3. Whether the invocation of a wrong provision of law (Rule 5 of CCS Temporary Service Rules) vitiates the termination order

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court precedent in High Court of M.P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar (2001), which established that no "deemed confirmation" occurs if the rules allow for extension without a maximum limit or require a specific act of confirmation

It further applied the principle that a formal inquiry is not necessary for a "simpliciter termination" of a probationer unless the order is stigmatic

Regarding the citation of laws, it applied the doctrine from N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre (2004) and Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India (2007), stating that quoting a wrong provision does not vitiate an order if the authority possesses the power under another source of law

The Tribunal analyzed the appointment terms, noting that Rule 4 specifically required "satisfactory performance" for regularization, meaning confirmation was a conscious act rather than an automatic event

Since the applicant’s probation was explicitly extended and he was never formally confirmed, he remained a probationer

The Tribunal observed that the termination order was a "simpliciter termination" and contained no stigma or accusations; hence, the protections of a full inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules were not applicable

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the technical objection regarding the incorrect sub-rule citation, holding that the respondents had the inherent jurisdiction to terminate a probationer as per the terms of the appointment letter

It held that the applicant was not a deemed confirmed employee and that the respondents were within their rights to terminate his services during the probation period without a formal inquiry

The termination order was found to be legally valid despite any clerical error in citing the specific rule, as the power to terminate existed under the appointment contract and service rules