- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The respondent, Jagannath Prasad, joined the Heavy Engineering Corporation as Engineer-probationer on 12/2/1964. On completion of the probation period he was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Manager, Assistant Manager and Deputy Manager. While he was working as Deputy Manager he was promoted as Manager by order dated 12/12/1990. The said promotion of the respondent was on probation for a period of 12 months or till the date of his. superannuation whichever was earlier. By order dated 30/9/1992 he was reverted back to the post of Deputy Manager with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of reversion the respondent moved a writ petition in the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said writ petition was allowed by a division bench of the High court by order dated 4/9/1993 and the order of reversion has been quashed. The High court has placed reliance on Rules 1.8.1.1 and 1.8.1.2 of the HEC Establishment Manual to hold : "Clause 1.8.1.1 categorically specifies that the period of probation can be extended only up to 12 months for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is, therefore, clear that for the purpose of extension of period of 12 months, not only the same has to be done by a specific order but also reasons therefor have to be recorded. Rule 1.8.1.2 also puts an obligation upon the employer to communicate the decision of successful 12 months' probation period in time. Thus, a combined reading of the aforementioned rules clearly shows that the respondents were bound to issue specific orders extending the period of probation before it expired. It is not the case of the respondents that any such orders had been passed. If no such order had been passed, in our opinion, by necessary implication, the petitioner would be deemed to have been confirmed as his period of probation was not extended by a reasoned order. "aggrieved by the said order of the High court, the appellants have filed this appeal.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;