1. The appellant was given a temporary appointment to the gazetted post of Medical Officer (Health Section) Class II in the Public Health Department of the respondents by office order dated 13-2-1968. The conditions attached to the order of appointment stated that the appointment was purely on a temporary basis for a period of one year. One of the conditions also further prescribed that if the appellant is selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, he will be on probation for a period of two years. He will be allowed increments during the period of probation in the scale mentioned therein.
2. The appellant was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. Thereafter by a resolution dated 10-9-1970, he and others were appointed as Medical Officers in Gujarat Public Health Service Class II. The resolution stated that the new entrants will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of taking over the charge of their respective posts.
3. By a resolution dated 19-7-1976 issued by the Government of Gujarat, Health and Family Planning Department, the services of the appellant were terminated as his services were reported to be not satisfactory during the probation period.
4. The appellant has challenged his termination from service. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that after the appointment of the appellant by the resolution of 10-9-1970, he has completed two years of probationary period, hence he must be deemed to be confirmed. His termination on the basis that it was during the probationary period on account of his unsatisfactory work must, therefore, be set aside since he was not on probation on the date of the termination order. No material has been produced before us to show that the appellant was confirmed after the completion of probationary period or that there was any provision in the relevant rules applicable to his service which conferred automatic confirmation on completion of two years' probationary period. No such material was produced before the High Court either and the learned Single Judge of the High Court has observed in his judgment that from the record of the case, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the appellant was holding a permanent post either on the basis of an order confirming him on the post which he was holding or by rules of the department or by any other provision of law. This judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench. We also do not have any material on record for coming to a conclusion that he had been confirmed in the post either by an express order or by virtue of any rule or by any other provision of law.
5. We, therefore, do not see any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that in case any dues of the appellant have not been paid on his termination from service under the impugned order, the same will be paid, if his legal representatives make a suitable application for that purpose.