M. GURUMOORTHY V. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ASSAM AND NAGALAND AND ORS INSC 120; AIR 1971 SC 1850; 1971 SCR 420; 1971 SCC 137

Background of the Case: M. Gurumoorthy, the appellant, was an employee of the Accountant General’s Office in Assam. He had joined service but later came into dispute with his employer regarding his employment status due to certain developments related to his probation period. The main issue revolved around the appellant's confirmation in service after the expiration of his probation period and whether his services could be terminated thereafter without a formal order of confirmation.

The petitioner challenged his termination and claimed that he had acquired a right to be confirmed in his post since he had completed the probation period satisfactorily, and there was no express extension of the probation or any order of termination before the completion of the probation period.

Legal Issues: Right to Confirmation After Expiration of Probation Period: The core issue was whether a government servant on probation acquires an automatic right to confirmation in service after the probation period ends if no express action (either of confirmation or termination) is taken by the employer.

Termination Without Formal Order: The case also questioned whether the termination of a probationer after the expiration of the probation period, without a formal order of extension or specific action, was valid under service rules.

Interpretation of Service Rules: Another critical issue was the interpretation of service rules and the conditions under which a probationer could be deemed to be confirmed in the absence of a formal confirmation order.

Judgment Summary: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, dealt with the interpretation of probationary rules in government service. The court addressed the question of whether a probationer could claim automatic confirmation after the expiration of the probation period.

Key Points from the Judgment: No Automatic Confirmation: The court held that merely because the probation period had expired, the probationer does not automatically acquire the status of a permanent employee unless there is an explicit order of confirmation. The government is not bound to confirm a probationer simply because the probation period has come to an end.

Need for Formal Confirmation: The court observed that confirmation in a government post is a positive act that requires a formal order. In the absence of such an order, the probationer continues to remain on probation. If the employer does not issue an order of confirmation, the status of the employee does not automatically change to that of a confirmed employee.

Employer's Discretion: The judgment emphasized that the employer has discretion in extending the probation period or taking any appropriate action regarding the employment status of the probationer. However, such discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily or without justification.

Termination During or After Probation: The court upheld the view that the services of a probationer can be terminated without the need to provide reasons, provided that the termination occurs in accordance with the rules governing probation and employment. Since the employee remains on probation until confirmed, the employer retains the right to terminate the services, subject to the conditions of the contract of service or relevant statutory provisions.

Constitutional Provisions: The judgment also referred to Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India, which deal with the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a state. Article 311 protects civil servants from arbitrary dismissal or removal, but the court clarified that these protections apply mainly to confirmed employees, and not necessarily to probationers, unless there is an element of malice or violation of statutory provisions in the termination.

Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of M. Gurumoorthy, holding that his termination was valid as he had not been confirmed in his post after the expiration of the probation period. The court reinforced the principle that confirmation of a probationer is not automatic and must be communicated through a formal order.

Legal Principles Established: Confirmation Requires an Explicit Act: Probationers do not automatically become confirmed employees after the expiration of the probation period. Confirmation requires a formal order from the employer.

Employer's Right to Terminate: The employer retains the right to terminate the services of a probationer in accordance with service rules, provided the termination is not arbitrary or in violation of any statutory or constitutional protections.

No Implied Confirmation: In the absence of a formal order, the probationer continues in that capacity, and there is no concept of implied confirmation unless service rules specifically provide for it.

The judgment of M. Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General Assam and Nagaland & Ors remains an important precedent in service law, particularly regarding the rights and status of probationary employees