JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner, Maheschhandra Srivastava, was appointed to the post of Curator, Mahant Ghasidas Memorial Museum, Raipur, on probation for a period of two years by the State Government by order dated 17th February 1968. The petitioner took over charge of his post on 15th April 1968. The State Government, by order dated 7th August 1973, terminated the services of the petitioner by giving one months notice. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the State Government. ( 2. ) IT is not disputed before us that the conditions of service of the petitioner were governed by the M. P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. Rule 8 is the relevant rule on the point which reads as follows: "8. Probation.- (1) A person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed. (2) The appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. Note.- A probationer whose period of probation is not extended under this sub-rule but who has neither been confirmed nor discharged from service at the end of the period of probation shall be deemed to have been continued in service, subject to the condition of his service being terminable on the expiry of a notice of one calendar month given in writing by either side. (3) A probationer shall undergo such training and pass such departmental examinations during the period of his probation as may be prescribed. (4) The services of a probationer may be terminated during the period of probation if in the opinion of the appointing authority he is not likely to shape into a suitable Government servant. (5) The services of a probationer who has not passed the departmental examinations or who is found unsuitable for the service or post may be terminated at the end of the period of his probation. (6) On the successful completion of probation and the passing of the prescribed departmental examinations, the probationer shall be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. " ( 3. (6) On the successful completion of probation and the passing of the prescribed departmental examinations, the probationer shall be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. " ( 3. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on a proper construction of the rule, the initial period of probation, which in the instant case was two years, could not be extended beyond one year and that the petitioner, immediately after the completion of three years, became a confirmed employee. The argument is that even if there is no express order of confirmation, a probationer must be deemed to be confirmed immediately after the expiry of three years, which is the maximum period of probation permitted under the rule. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the following cases: (i) State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh ( AIR 1968 SC 1210 ), (ii) Raghuvansh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MP No. 65 of 1968 decided on 2nd March 1970), (iii) Narayan Singh Thakur v. Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh. Gwalior and others ( 1971 MPLJ 496 ) and (iv) Chhatarsal Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1973 MPLJ 98 ) ( 4. ) TO appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to consider as to what is the correct construction of the rule. Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 says that a person appointed by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed. The word prescribed has been defined in Rule 2 (f) to mean prescribed by other rules or by general or special executive instructions. We are told that there are some general executive instructions issued in the matter which require that a person appointed by direct recruitment shall be initially placed on a probation of two years. In the instant case also, it will be seen that the petitioner was placed on probation for two years. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 then says that the appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. It is clear from sub-rule (2) that the period of probation under this provision cannot be extended for more than a year. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 then says that the appointing authority may, for sufficient reasons, extend the period of probation by a further period not exceeding one year. It is clear from sub-rule (2) that the period of probation under this provision cannot be extended for more than a year. So, if a person is appointed initially on probation for two years, the maximum period of probation under sub-rules (1) and (2) can be three years. If on the expiry of the initial period of probation, the period of probation is extended by an exercise of power under sub-rule (2), the civil servant concerned will continue to remain on probation. It is also possible that instead of extending the period of probation, the services of the civil servant may be terminated on the ground of unsuitability. Another alternative is that in case the civil servant has passed the departmental examinations, if any, for the post and his work is satisfactory, he may be confirmed. But what happens when on the expiry of the initial period of probation, the civil servant is neither confirmed or discharged nor his period of probation is extended in exercise of the power under sub-rule (2 ). The answer to this question depends upon the proper construction of the Note which is appended to sub-rule (2 ). Such a civil servant, in terms of the Note, "shall be deemed to have been continued in service, subject to the condition of his service being terminable on the expiry of a notice of one calendar month given in writing by either side. " It will be seen that the note does not say that such a civil servant shall be deemed to have been continued as a probationer; he is deemed to have been continued in service on the condition that either side may terminate the service by one months notice. In our opinion, if the probationary period initially fixed is not extended under sub-rule (2), the civil servant ceases to be on probation and he continues in service on the terms and conditions prescribed by the Note. It will be seen that a probationer cannot be discharged from service excepting on the ground of unsuitability or on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examinations as is provided in sub-rules (4) and (5 ). It will be seen that a probationer cannot be discharged from service excepting on the ground of unsuitability or on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examinations as is provided in sub-rules (4) and (5 ). But, a civil servant who continues in service on the terms and conditions prescribed by the Note, can be discharged from service without assigning any reason, simply by giving a months notice. Such a civil servant cannot be said to be on probation. Sub-rule (4) enables the appointing authority to terminate the services of a probationer during the period of probation if he is not likely to shape into a suitable Government servant. Similarly, sub-rule (5) enables the appointing authority to terminate the services of a probationer who has not passed the departmental examinations or who is found unsuitable for the service or post at the end of the period of his probation. Sub-rule (6) directs that on the successful completion of probation and the passing of the prescribed departmental examinations, the probationer shall be confirmed in the service or post to which he has been appointed. A reading of sub-rules (4), (5) and (6) will show that all of them apply to a probationer. They do not apply to the case of a civil servant who has ceased to be a probationer by operation of the Note after the expiry of his initial period of probation in cases where there was no extension of the period by an order passed under sub-rule (2 ). The question that period of probation cannot be extended beyond one year under sub-rule (2) and, therefore, a probationer who is continued in service beyond one year after expiry of the initial period of probation of two years must be deemed to be confirmed, does not arise in those cases where the Note applies, for the simple reason that a person falling under the provisions of the note ceases to be a probationer after the expiry of the initial period of probation. In cases where the initial period of probation is extended under sub-rule (2), the note has no application. In these cases, as the period of probation is extended and as the Note does not apply, the probationer continues as a probationer. In cases where the initial period of probation is extended under sub-rule (2), the note has no application. In these cases, as the period of probation is extended and as the Note does not apply, the probationer continues as a probationer. It may be possible in these cases to say that as the period of probation could not be extended beyond three years, the civil servant concerned, after the expiry of three years, would be deemed to be confirmed. But, in cases falling within the note, any implication of confirmation after expiry of three years is negatived for the reason that the civil servant concerned, after expiry of two years which is the initial period of probation prescribed by sub-rule (1), ceases to be a probationer because of imposition of new conditions of service by the deeming clause contained in the Note. In such cases, the conditions of probation are abrogated and the civil servant continues in service on the new conditions that his service shall be terminable on the expiry of a notice of one calendar month given in writing by either side. Now as this is the result of the fiction created by the note which comes into play at the expiry of initial period of probation of two years, it is difficult to say that at the end of three years, the person concerned must be deemed to be confirmed. We are clearly of opinion that a civil servant who continues in service after the initial period of probation and in whose case, the period of probation is not extended under sub-rule (2), cannot be taken to have been impliedly confirmed after expiry of three years. Such a persons case falls within the Note and his services can be terminated by giving a months notice even after expiry of three years. ( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if a civil servant whose period of probation has not been extended under sub-rule (2) and whose case falls within the Note does not continue as a probationer, then he cannot be confirmed even if the Government subsequently is of the opinion that his work is satisfactory. ( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if a civil servant whose period of probation has not been extended under sub-rule (2) and whose case falls within the Note does not continue as a probationer, then he cannot be confirmed even if the Government subsequently is of the opinion that his work is satisfactory. The learned counsel points out that such a result is not contemplated by the Rule which shows that a civil servant whose case falls within the Note is also continued as a probationer although his period of probation is not extended by any express order. The argument assumes that a civil servant whose case falls within the Note and who, according to its true construction does not continue as a probationer, cannot be confirmed by the Government later on. If the Government wants to confirm such a person, the Government can confirm him retrospectively from the date of completion of the initial period of probation. The Government may also extend retrospectively the period of probation under sub-rule (2 ). By such an order, the Note will cease to be applicable and the confirmation of the civil servant concerned can be made under sub-rule (6 ). But, if no order is passed extending the period of probation under sub-rule (2), the continuance in service of the civil servant concerned, as already explained, will not be as a probationer and his continuance in service in such a case will be on the condition laid down in the Note that the services will be terminable on a months notice given by either side. ( 6. ) IN State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh (supra), it was laid down by the supreme Court that where the service rules fix a period of time beyond which the probationery 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 and it is permissible to draw the inference that the employee has been confirmed in the post by implication. The rule that was construed in that case did not contain any provision similar to the Note in Rule 8 of the rules with which we are concerned. The rule that was construed in that case did not contain any provision similar to the Note in Rule 8 of the rules with which we are concerned. Dharam Singhs case has, therefore, no application to cases falling within the Note of Rule 8. In Raghuvansh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Narayan Singh Thakur v. Excise Commissioner, madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and others and Chhatarsal Singh Yadav v. State of madhya Pradesh (supra), the initial period of probation was extended by order passed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8. The civil servants concerned in these cases continued in service as probationer by the orders of extension passed under sub-rule (2) beyond the period of three years and it was held that even in the absence of an express order of confirmation, they must be taken to be confirmed by implication on the ground that the period of probation could not be extended beyond three years. These cases, therefore, are distinguishable on facts. It is true that in Chhatarsal Singh Yadavs case, there are observations that the continuance in service of a civil servant under the Note would be only upto the maximum period of probation provided by sub-rule (2) and that thereafter such a person would also be taken to be confirmed by implication. But, those observations are obiter, for, as already stated, in Chhatarsal Singhs case also, the period of probation had been extended under sub-rule (2 ). The obiter observations were made without realising the full implications of the deeming provision contained in the Note and without noticing that the condition of service prescribed by the deeming provision is entirely different from the condition of service of a probationer. The proper interpretation of the Note cannot, therefore, be taken to be concluded by the decision in Chhatarsal Singh Yadavs case. ( 7. ) THE learned Advocate General contended before us that a careful reading of sub-rule (6) goes to show that no probationer can be taken to be impliedly confirmed even if he has been continued in service for more than the maximum period of probation permissible under sub-rule (2 ). ( 7. ) THE learned Advocate General contended before us that a careful reading of sub-rule (6) goes to show that no probationer can be taken to be impliedly confirmed even if he has been continued in service for more than the maximum period of probation permissible under sub-rule (2 ). It is pointed out that the requirements prescribed by sub-rule (6) of "successful completion of probation and the passing of the prescribed departmental examinations" necessitate an application of mind by the appointing authority to find out whether the work of the probationer has been satisfactory and whether he has passed the departmental examinations. These matters cannot be taken to have been judged by implication. It is further argued that sub-rule (2) which says that the period of probation cannot be extended beyond one year, should be construed as directory. Reliance for this submission is placed on the case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1974 SC 2192 .) where a service rule prescribing prima facie maximum period of probation was construed to be directory in the context of other rules. The learned Advocate General challenged the correctness of the view taken in Raghuvansh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Narayan Singh thakur v. Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and others and chhatarsal Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra ). It is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the argument, because the petitioners case is not governed by sub-rules (2) and (6 ). It is solely governed by the Note. We have already stated that the obiter observations made in Chhatarsal Singh yadavs case on the interpretation of the Note are not correct. Beyond this, it is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the aforesaid cases. ( 8. ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petitioner cannot be taken to have been confirmed after expiry of three years from the date of his appointment. He continued in service under the deeming provision contained in the Note on the condition that his services would be terminable on the expiry of a months notice. The order of the State Government, terminating the services of the petitioner is, therefore, valid. The petition consequently fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.