JUDGMENT O.P. Trivedi, J. - This special appeal has been filed by Mani Chand and arises from the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court dated 9-5-1972 passed in writ petition No. 201 of 1970. The appellant was appointed an Overseer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1959 and was put on probation on 1-1-1964 for a period of two years. This period of probation was extended subsequently to end on 31-12-1967. As the petitioner failed to pass a qualifying departmental examination by 20-12-1966 he was required by the Executive Engineer to refund a sum of Rs. 592 and odd paid to him in excess of sums to which he was entitled. On 6-9-1968 the petitioner was served with a notice saying that he has been passed over for confirmation since he had failed to pass the departmental examinations during the period of probation, side annexure 7 of the writ petition. On 2-9-1968 he received also a notice saying that his services will be liable to termination if he fails to pass the departmental examination, vide annexure 6 of the writ petition. The appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in this Court and prayed for quashing of the order directing refund of money received by him in excess and also prayed for mandamus directing the opposite parties to treat him as a confirmed overseer. 2. The order of cancellation of increment and for refund of Rs. 592 and odd was quashed by certiorari but the prayer for mandamus was rejected. 3. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in arguments is that the appellant should be deemed to have been confirmed by implication because he was permitted to continue to work as an overseer even after the end of extended period of probation, that is, 31-12-1967. For this submission learned counsel relied in the main, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1210. This ruling was cited before the learned Single Judge also but was distinguished by the learned Single Judge. After hearing Sri A. Mannan learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K. S. Verma, the Chief Standing Counsel, we are unable to find that on principle this ruling of the Supreme Court is distinguishable. This ruling was cited before the learned Single Judge also but was distinguished by the learned Single Judge. After hearing Sri A. Mannan learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K. S. Verma, the Chief Standing Counsel, we are unable to find that on principle this ruling of the Supreme Court is distinguishable. In that case the Supreme Court observed that where the service rules fix a certain period of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended, and an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation is allowed to continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation without an express order of confirmation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that post as a probationer by implication. The reason is that such an implication is negatived by the service rule forbidding extension of the probationary period beyond the maxi-mum period fixed by it. In such a case, it is permissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue in the post on completion of the maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by implication Rules 19, 20 and 21 of the Service Rules governing the appellant are as follows : "19. Probation-A person on appointment in or against a substantive vacancy shall be placed on probation for a period of two years; provided that officiating and temporary service, if it is continuous, shall count towards the period of, probation to the maximum extent of one year. "20. Extension of the period of probation : (1) If it appears at any time during or at the end of the period of probation that a probationer has not made sufficient use of his opportunities, or if he has otherwise failed to give satisfaction, he may be removed from the service, provided that the Chief Engineer may extend the period of probation in special cases upto a further period not exceeding one year. Any such extension shall specify the exact date up to which the extension is granted. (2) A probationer removed from service during or at the end of the period of probation or the extended period of probation under sub-rule (1) shall not be entitled to any compensation. 21. Any such extension shall specify the exact date up to which the extension is granted. (2) A probationer removed from service during or at the end of the period of probation or the extended period of probation under sub-rule (1) shall not be entitled to any compensation. 21. Confirmation : A probationer shall be confirmed in his appointment at the end of his -period of probation, or extended period of probation, if the Chief Engineer considers him fit for confirmation and his integrity is certified." 4. The basis of decision of the Supreme Court is the Service Rule that probation could not be extended beyond a particular period. In the present case also the service rule provides that initially the probation period stall be two years and that it shall not be extended in any case beyond one year. In other words according to the service rules in the instant case the period of probation cannot be beyond three years. There is thus basic similarity between the instant service rules and the rules of the case which came up before the Supreme Court. That being the basic position, the result will be, as was observed by the Supreme Court, namely, that if the probationer is allowed to continue on the post after completion of the maximum period of probation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that post as a probationer. These observations of the Supreme Court apply on all fours to the present case also. In the appellant's case the probation was extended up to 31-12-1967. Therefore, he cannot be deemed to continue as a probationer after 31-12-1967 and therefore, it is permissible to draw the inference that he has been confirmed on the post by implication. This inference is supported by the wordings of Rules 20 and 21. Rule 21 says that a probationer shall be confirmed in his appointment at the end of his period of probation. What rule 21, therefore, contemplates is that the question of his confirmation shall arise at the end of his period of probation or extended period of probation. After expiry of the period of probation or extended period of probation under these service rules the employee cannot be treated as a probationer. What rule 21, therefore, contemplates is that the question of his confirmation shall arise at the end of his period of probation or extended period of probation. After expiry of the period of probation or extended period of probation under these service rules the employee cannot be treated as a probationer. The use of the word `probationer' in Rule 21 signifies that the question of his confirmation must be decided upon by the Chief Engineer at the end of the period of his probation or extended period of probation. Rule 20 no doubt gives to the Chief Engineer power of removal of a person who was on probation and has not made sufficient use of his opportunity or who has otherwise failed to give satisfaction but sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 says that a probationer removed from service during or at the end of period of probation shall not be entitled to any compensation. We would like to italics here the words `during' and `at' occurring in sub-rule of probation or the extended period of (2) of Rule 20. The use of the word `at' in sub-rule (2) also signifies that the decision to remove a probationer must be taken at the end of the period of probation and not afterwards for if the intention of the legislature were that the action of removal could be taken at any time subsequent to the completion of period of probation or the extended period of probation then instead of the word `at' the word `after' should have been used in sub-rule (2) in which case sub-rule (2) would have read as follows : "A probationer removed from service during or after the end of the period of probation.,..,..,.." From the wordings of Rules 20 and 21, therefore, the only conclusion to which we can reasonably arrive is that at the end of the period of probation or the extended period of probation the Chief Engineer must come to a decision as to whether the probationer is fit for confirmation and his integrity is not in doubt and either pass an order of confirmation if he is satisfied on these matters or pass an order of removal if he is not so satisfied. The decision to confirm the probationer or to remove him must be taken at the latest by the end of the period of probation or the extended period of probation and cannot be taken beyond this datum line. If at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation the Chief Engineer takes no such decision and neither passes an order of confirmation nor an order of removal and the petitioner is continued to hold the post, then the only reasonable inference is that he was confirmed by implication as held by the Supreme Court in the case Supra. 5. We, therefore, hold that if a Government servant to whom the U. P., P. W. D. (Irrigation Branch) Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1951, apply, is allowed to hold the post at the end of his period of probation or extended period of probation then he will be deemed to have been confirmed by implication. 6. On the view which we take the appellant is entitled to mandamus in terms prayed for and also to certiorari for quashing annexures 6 and 7. 7. We accordingly allow the appeal and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as a confirmed overseer in the Irrigation Department of the U.P. Government. Let mandamus issue accordingly. 8. We further quash the order of the Chief Engineer dated 2-9-1968 and 6-9-1968, of which annexures 6 and 7 of the Writ Petition are copies. The appellant shall also get costs of this appeal and of the Writ Petition from respondent No. 1.