1997 JTR(SC) 236
1997 9 SCC 243 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1149 ; 1997 KHC 3670
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(C.A.T., Principal Bench, New Delhi)
A.M Ahmadi, C.J.I., B N Kirpal, S Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
TARSEM LAL VERMA, PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
SLP (C) No. 10609 of 1996
decided on February 10, 1997.
When specific recruitment rules supersede earlier rules, the later rules govern the terms of employment. If the governing rules do not prescribe a maximum limit for the probation period, the probation may be extended beyond the initial period to allow for performance improvement.
Act Referred :ARMED FORCES HEAD QUARTERS CIVIL SERVICES RULES: R.13(3)
(A) Recruitment Rules, 1982 - Probation period - Extension of probation - Absence of maximum period prescribed - Where the relevant recruitment rules fix a probation period without prescribing a maximum limit, the probation may be extended beyond the initial period to allow the employee to improve performance. (Para 1)
(B) Supersession of Rules - Applicability - Where newer recruitment rules supersede earlier rules and instructions, the later rules govern the terms of service, and any provisions or office memoranda based on the superseded rules have no application. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as a photographic officer, had a probation period of two years under the relevant recruitment rules of 1982. Due to unsatisfactory work and conduct, the probation was extended by an additional 550 days. The petitioner contended that under the civil services rules of 1968, the total extension could not exceed one year, and thus he should have been automatically confirmed upon the expiry of that period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was governed by the 1982 Rules, which superseded the 1968 Rules and any prior office memoranda. Since the 1982 Rules did not stipulate a maximum period for probation, the extension granted to the petitioner to enable improvement in performance was valid.
Issues: Whether the probation period could be extended beyond the initial two years and whether the 1968 Rules or the 1982 Rules were applicable to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when specific recruitment rules supersede earlier rules, the later rules prevail. In the absence of a prescribed maximum limit for probation in the governing rules, the authority is permitted to extend the probation period.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) Supersession of Rules - Applicability - Where newer recruitment rules supersede earlier rules and instructions, the later rules govern the terms of service, and any provisions or office memoranda based on the superseded rules have no application. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as a photographic officer, had a probation period of two years under the relevant recruitment rules of 1982. Due to unsatisfactory work and conduct, the probation was extended by an additional 550 days. The petitioner contended that under the civil services rules of 1968, the total extension could not exceed one year, and thus he should have been automatically confirmed upon the expiry of that period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was governed by the 1982 Rules, which superseded the 1968 Rules and any prior office memoranda. Since the 1982 Rules did not stipulate a maximum period for probation, the extension granted to the petitioner to enable improvement in performance was valid.
Issues: Whether the probation period could be extended beyond the initial two years and whether the 1968 Rules or the 1982 Rules were applicable to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when specific recruitment rules supersede earlier rules, the later rules prevail. In the absence of a prescribed maximum limit for probation in the governing rules, the authority is permitted to extend the probation period.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
We have heard the petitioner in person and the learned ASG for the Union of India. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that his probation period was wrongly enhanced beyond the period of two years fixed under the Rules. Admittedly, he was occupying the post of Photographic Officer. According to the Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Film and Photo Division (Photographic Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1982 (hereinafter called "the Rules") the probation period was fixed at two years without any maximum having been prescribed. Therefore, when the probation of two years expired the petitioners probation was not terminated as his work and conduct were not found to be satisfactory and in order to give him an opportunity to improve his performance it was extended beyond the period of two years, according to the petitioner, by an additional 550 days. The petitioner tried to place reliance on the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Services Rules, 1968 and in particular Rule 13(3) which provides that the total period of probation can be extended not beyond one year. According to him, therefore, when one year beyond the period of two years expired he became automatically confirmed in the job. But these rules do not apply to him because he is governed by the 1982 Rules which we have referred to earlier. Reference was also made by the petitioner to an Office Memorandum dated 7-10-1970 but since the 1982 Rules clearly superseded the earlier rules any instructions issued on the basis of the earlier rules can have no application. That is why the Tribunal in para 12 of the impugned order states that there was no stipulation in the relevant recruitment rules fixing the maximum period of probation at two years. It further notices that the petitioner was allowed to continue in service even after the expiry of the probation period of two years to enable him to show improvement. That being so, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. That is being the only point urged before us, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.