B.N.Agrawal, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Common judgment impugned in these appeals has been passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the respondents in these appeals, excepting civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11675 of 2000, which was preferred by the present appellant, whereby the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the order of learned single Judge allowing the writ application upheld, but other appeals have been allowed and the judgment rendered by learned single Judge dismissing the writ applications has been set aside.
(3.) Necessary facts giving rise to these appeals are that respondents in these appeals, excepting Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11675 and 11704 of 2000, were appointed as Civil Judges (Trainee), Class II, on different dates temporarily on officiating basis upon the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and they were required to undergo six months training be- fore being appointed on probation for a period of two years. After completion of six months' training, their probation period started on different dates as per rule 24 of the Rules wherein the initial probation period was two years which could be extended for a further period of two years, meaning thereby the maximum period of probation under the Rules was four years. Cases of these respondents were considered for confirmation within a period of four years but they were not found fit by the Full Court, as such the same were deferred on the first occasion and later on, after expiry of four years period of probation. Case of only respondent in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.11457 of 2000 was considered only once and that also after the probation period and he having not been found fit for confirmation. upon the recommendation of the High Court, his service was terminated and so far others are concerned, their cases for confirmation were considered, even after probation period, every year for a couple of years, but, as in spite of giving repeated opportunities to improve themselves, they could not improve, ultimately the Full Court recommended for terminating their services whereupon the same were terminated. Services of the respondents in the aforesaid five appeals, excepting Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 11457/2000, were terminated after few years of expiry of four years period of probation whereas the service of respondent in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.11457/2000 was terminated within few months from the expiry of period of probation.;