M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a constable in Armed Police on 2.8.1974. His services seem to have been terminated on 29-7- 1978. The termination order says that the petitioner's services were no longer required. The termination order of the petitioner's services is by way of punishment, hence he challenges the same through the medium of this writ petition. The petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the termination order before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. After having failed there he has filed this petition. The U.P. Public Service Tribunal has refused to review its own order when the petitioner sought a review of the said order.
(2.) After the petitioner's selection he was to remain on probation for a period of two years. This is in terms of Regulations 541 (Chapter XXXVII) of the Police Regulations. If at the end of probation his conduct has been satis factory and if he has been approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for service in the force, the Superintendent of Police would confirm him in his appointment. In any case in which either during or at the end of the period of probation, the Superintendent of Police was of the opinion that a recruit is unlikely to make a good police officer he may dispense with his service. Before however this is done the recruit must be supplied with specific complaints and grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and then he should be called upon to show cause as to why he should not be discharged. The recruit's representation filed by him in his reply is to be dulconsidered before passing the order of discharge.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has remained on probation for more than four years, therefore, he will be deemed to have been confirmed after two years of probation, which he is said to have completed in 1976. However, this argument does not seem to be correct because after the expiry of period of probation a recruit will not be automatically confirmed without an express order from the competent authority. The probation period in this case was continued beyond the initial period of probation. He would not enjoy the status of confirmed official. His probation period seems to have been extended which could be done and he cannot claim automatic confirmation after two years of his initial probation. Therefore, the petitioner has not become a confirmed recruit. He continued to be a probationer.;