KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THE only point raised and required determination in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner stood automatically confirmed after the expiry of period of the probation of one year mentioned in his appointment letter dated 2. 11. 1985 (Ex. 2) or in the alternative after the expiry of one year extended period as mentioned in letter dated 10. 7. 1987 (Ex. 4 ). THE controversy has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE petitioner was selected as an Administrative Officer and was appointed as such by the Institute of Development Studies (the respondent) vide letter dated 2. 11. 1985 (Ex. 2 ). His appointment was on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining the services which could be altered at the discretion of the appointing authority and on the successful completion of the probationary period, the question of his confirmation was to be taken-up. THE petitioner joined the services of the respondent on 14. 11,1985. A note (Ex. R-1) was put up by the petitioner on 17. 3. 1987 with a request to the Director to confirm him as the period of probation had expired. Vide a note dated 23. 3. 1987 recorded on Exhibit R-l the Director of the respondent-Institute noted that he had discussed the matter with the petitioner and had conveyed to him that the petitioner had not shown any initiative in his work and he was not satisfied with his functioning and the Faculty was not happy with his work. Vide letter dated 10. 7. 1987 (Ex. 4), the Director of the respondent-Institute wrote to the petitioner about the dis-satisfaction already recorded on Ex. R-l and also that a month prior to the date of issue of the letter again the dis- satisfaction of the work was conveyed by him to the petitioner and stating that his probation had been extended for further period of one year i. e. till 14. 11. 1987. No order confirming the petitioner was passed even after 14. 11. 87 and he was allowed to continue to work as Administrative Officer. On 1. 11. 1988 letter (Ex. 6) was issued to the petitioner informing him that his services would not be needed after 31. 1. 1989 and that, although under the service rules only one month notice was necessary, three months notice was being given to him so that he could make alternative arrangement for his suitable employment else-where. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the probation period mentioned in appointment letter (Ex. 2) was one year and that the said period was not extended before the expiry of the period of one year from the date of petitioner's joining his services and as such he should be deemed to have been automatically confirmed on the post of Administrative Officer. In the alternative, it has been contended that the petitioner having been continued in service even after the expiry of the extended probationary period, he should be deemed to have been confirmed and as such his services could not be terminated by the respondent: Admittedly, according to the appointment letter (Ex. 2) the matter of confirmation of the petitioner was to be considered after successful completion of the petitioner the period of probation which could be altered at the discretion of the respondent. No service rule has been brought to my notice according to which the petitioner can be deemed to have been automatically confirmed if his services were not terminated during the period of initial probation or during the period of his extended probation. It is now well settled that when an appointment is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of such period without any specific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his post as a probationer only,in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original order of the appointment or the rules, and that in such a case an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a right to the post and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation it is not possible to hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed. See the decision of the Supreme Court in cases Sukh bans Singh vs. State of Punjab (1), G. S. Ramaswami & ors. Vs. Inspector General of Police, Mysore (2) and The State of U. P. Vs. Akbar Ali Khan The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without substance. No other point has been raised before me. The writ petition is without merit and it is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. . ;