S.S. Candhawalia, J. - (1.) WHETHER Rule -3 of the Punjabi University Calendar, Volume -1, is a stipulation for the automatic confirmation of a probationer employee on the very day of the expiry of his period of probation? - -is the somewhat meaningful question which arises in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) KARTAR Singh, Appellant, was appointed as a Lecturer in English in a private institution styled as 'Sant Baba Attar Singh Khalsa College, Sangrur, on June 28, 1973 and actually joined' service on July 16, 1973. The letter of appointment, annexure P/1 provided inter alia that he would be on probation for one year and one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of that will be necessary for either party to leave or terminate the services. Further, it was mentioned therein that all University and College Rules will be binding upon the Appellant. The clear stand of the private Respondents herein is that. when the initial period of one year's probation of the Appellant was nearing completion, his service record did not merit confirmation and the President of the Managing Committee, after consulting other members thereof, directed Respondent No. 3, the Principal of the College to extend the period of probation of the Appellant by one year in anticipation of the approval of the Managing Committee. Accordingly, on July 22, 1974, the Principal of the College intimated the Petitioner to this effect. It does not seem to be in dispute that owing to the absence of the President of the Managing Committee from station, no meeting of the Managing Committee could be held till August 11, 1974 on which date the extension of the probation period was duly ratified. The Appellant neither challenged nor protested against this extension of his probation.
(3.) BEFORE the extended period of probation could expire the Managing Committee, in its meeting held on June 13, 1975, considered the case of the Petitioner and apparently finding his work and conduct unsatisfactory, resolved to terminate his services on the expiry of the probationary period on July 15, 1975. The Appellant made a representation to the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, which was, however, considered and filed on November 28, 1975. The Appellant then challenged the termination of his services by way of a writ petition and the learned Single Judge, in a considered judgment, has repelled all the contentions raised on his behalf and dismissed the writ petition. Whilst doing so, it was held that even the original appointment of the Appellant was not in accordance with the rules of the Punjabi University and therefore, the service rules of the Punjabi University Calendar would be hardly attracted in his case. Further, it was held that the Appellant having not raised any objection to the extension of his period of probation before the authorities or challenged the same in a court of law, he must, as a necessary inference, be deemed to have accepted the extension of the period of his probation. Lastly, it was opined that the College and the University Rules did not envisage any automatic confirmation of an employee without any specific order of confirmation.;