ORDER : The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has a very limited sphere within which the right claimed by the petitioner is to be examined. 2. The petitioner was directly appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the Central Industrial Force with effect from 1-11-1972. He was on probation in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, reproduced hereafter : "19. Probation - (1) All appointments by direct recruitment or promotion shall be on probation for two years subject to the provision that the appointing authority may extend this period in special cases. (2) The appointing authority shall, on the expiry of the period of such probation or such extended period, pass an order declaring that the probationer has completed the period of probation satisfactorily and is suitable for confirmation in that rank. If he considers him unsuitable, the probationer shall be liable to be discharged in the case of a direct recruit or reverted to the substantive post in the case of a promotee." By C.I.S.F. Service Order No. 31/75, which is placed at page 57 of the paper-book, the petitioner, in terms of Rule 19 of the C.I.S.F. Rules, 1969, was declared to have completed his probation period satisfactorily on 31-10-1974. And as a result he was found suitable for confirmation in the post of Assistant Commandant in the Force as and when permanent vacancies became available. Undeniably permanent vacancies were available on that date and were available thereafter the petitioner was treated as if not confirmed. It appears that some time thereafter, there were adverse entries in his Confidential Reports for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. On the basis thereof a Departmental Promotion Committee in its deliberation prepared a tentative and then final seniority list on 9-3-1982 and 10-6-1982 respectively, finding the petitioner unfit for confirmation owing to consistently adverse record. 3. The aggrieve petitioner on this count as well as on other counts has approached this Court by means of this petition. The Bench admitting it limited it to the question why the petitioner was not confirmed by the respondent from the day he completed his probation for this reason, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the grievance of the petitioner to that limited extent. 4. The Bench admitting it limited it to the question why the petitioner was not confirmed by the respondent from the day he completed his probation for this reason, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the grievance of the petitioner to that limited extent. 4. It appears that when the matter was at motion stage, the Bench initiated the Union of India-respondent in giving a date of confirmation to the petitioner. The respondent gave that date as 1-1-1981. We have required learned counsel appearing for the Union of India-respondent to give us the basis of that date but he says that this was given as the date on which the junior of the petitioner was confirmed in a higher post. It seems to us that this workable date does not satisfy the Rule which we have quoted above or the petitioner. The probation period is fixed for two years and unless extended in a special case must on the expiry, subject to the period having been completed satisfactorily, entail automatic confirmation. It is only in the case of unsuitability that the probationer can be made to quit by an order of discharge. The petitioner being a direct recruit was liable to be discharged if he had not satisfactorily completed his period of probation of two years, or within any extended period, which is not the case. No steps towards that direction had been taken in the instant case. Rather the order of 22-1-1975 indicates that the petitioner has satisfactorily completed the period of probation and his eligibility for confirmation was dependent upon the availability of a permanent vacancy. As said earlier, since the existence of a vacancy on that date and even thereafter has not been denied, it is difficult to see how the petitioner could be treated to have not been confirmed till 1982 when he was declared unconfirmed by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The exercise in that regard of the Departmental Promotion Committee was beyond its power, as we spell out. Since the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that he stood confirmed with effect from 31-10-1974 in terms of the order dated 22-1-1975 we order that if a vacancy was available on that date or thereafter he shall be deemed to have got it in order. Since the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that he stood confirmed with effect from 31-10-1974 in terms of the order dated 22-1-1975 we order that if a vacancy was available on that date or thereafter he shall be deemed to have got it in order. We do not opine anything on his seniority and more so vis-a-vis respondent No. 4 who claims to have been taken in service earlier to the petitioner. 5. For the reasons set out above this petition is allowed to this limited extent. There shall be no order as to costs.