Short Note : 1. The petitioner, while working on the post of Depot Manager of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was selected for being appointed as Senior Depot Manager on promotion. The appointment to the higher post was, however, on probation for a period of one year stated in the order of appointment. On 29-6-1973, he was reverted to his substantive post of Depot Manager with immediate effect. The order issued in this respect mentioned unsatisfactory performance as the reason for reversion. Held: As regards the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, it would suffice to observe that a probationer cannot, after the expiry of probationary period, automatically acquire the status of a confirmed employee, unless the rules governing the service conditions or the terms of the contract expressly provided for such a result. As stated no such express provision in the rules could be pointed out by the petitioner. There is nothing like that even in the order of appointment also. Under these circumstances it is implicit that despite the fact that the initial period of probation was not extended and the petitioner was allowed to continue to work on the higher post even after the expiry of the period of probation, he continued to be a probationer until he was reverted or confirmed. It is also implicit that the employee, who is working on probation has to prove his suitability for the higher post in which he is officiating. If the employer finds that his work on the higher post was not satisfactory, he could always be reverted back to his substantive post and for the same it was not necessary for the employer to hold any inquiry by giving any opportunity to show cause When a person officiating in his post is reverted for unsatisfactory work, it cannot be said that the reversion amounts to reduction in rank. The employer has a right to consider the suitability of the employee to hold the posit ion to which he had been appointed to officiate. S. Sukhlians Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1711 , relied on. 2. As regards the second contention that the mention of the fact in the order of reversion, that the petitioner was unfit as his work on the post was unsatisfactory, amounts to stigma is also not acceptable. S. Sukhlians Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1711 , relied on. 2. As regards the second contention that the mention of the fact in the order of reversion, that the petitioner was unfit as his work on the post was unsatisfactory, amounts to stigma is also not acceptable. On the contrary, while reverting an employee from the higher post to his substantive post giving of such reason is a good check against arbitrary exercise of powers. If the authorities bona fide form an opinion that the official concerned is not suitable and make an order terminating the appointment of a probationer or a temporary employee, who has not acquired any right to the post, it cannot be said that the order was intended as punishment merely because the fact of unsuitability has been mentioned in the order. In the present case, there is no allegation of mala fides and as there was no automatic confirmation in the absence of any specific terms in the 'contract of service or in the rules, there is little scope for challenging the order impugned. Harisingh Mann v; State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2263 , Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192 , State of U.P. v. Ramchandra Trivedi, AIR 1974 SC 2547, relied on. Petition dismissed.