JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 1st June, 1984 (Annexure 5' to the writ petition) whereby his services have been terminated. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Secretary in the U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Ghazipur, by way of direct recruitment as envisaged by Rule 25 of the U. P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralised Services Rules, 1976 (briefly the Rules, 1976) by a Selection Committee as constituted under the Rules and then he joined on 2781979 and his services were terminated by simpliciter termination order on 161984. The contention of the petitioner is that under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1976, he was appointed on probation of a period of two years, which could be extended by the District Committee for a further period of six months. It is stated that his performance was quite satisfactory during the period of probation and, therefore, no action was taken against him during that period. His performance being excellent during the probationary period, the petitioner contends that he will be deemed to have been confirmed immediately after the expiry of the probationary period, which in this case may at best be taken at two and half years including the extended period of probation. He having been confirmed by implication upon the expiry of the probationary period, it is contended that his discharge simpliciter by the order dated 161984 (Annexure 5' to the Writ petition) is null and void, inasmuch as services of a confirmed employee cannot be terminated by discharge simpliciter order, without holding an enquiry. It is, therefore, prayed that the discharge simpliciter order be quashed. Also it is contended that the respondent No. 3 with a sinister motive prepared a list of certain candidates, whom he wanted to appoint and, therefore, he passed the impugned illegal order to make a room for the persons of his choice, from whom he took illegal gratification. 3. It is importantly noted that no counteraffidavit has been filed by any of the respondents and, therefore, the case is to be seen on the basis of the aforesaid Rules and uncontroverted fasts. 4. It remains uncontroverted that the petitioner was selected by way of direct recruitment as envisaged by Rule 25 of the Rules, 1976, and that he remained on probation for a period of two years. 4. It remains uncontroverted that the petitioner was selected by way of direct recruitment as envisaged by Rule 25 of the Rules, 1976, and that he remained on probation for a period of two years. It is said that his period of probation was never extended, but even if it is assumed that the same was extended by six months, then too the period of probation expired much before 1st June, 1984, when the termination simpliciter order was passed. 5. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner will stand confirmed by implication after probationary period having been expired, during which no action was taken by the respondents to terminate his services, There is enough guideline on this question from the Supreme Court and this point is no longer res integra. In Om Prokash Maurya v. U.P. Cooperative Sugar factories Federation Lucknow and others ( AIR 1986 SC 1844 ), the Supreme Court interpreting the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, held that where the employee was allowed to continue beyond the probationary period, then the employee 'could not be deemed to continue on probation and he would be said to have been confirmed in the post by implication after expiry of maximum probationary period of two years. 6. Submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that the language employed in Regulation 17 is entirely different from the language of Rule 27 of the Rules, 1976, inasmuch as the former clearly forbids extension of probationary period beyond a year, the latter does not say so. I do not see any substance in this submission. Rule 27 of the Rules, 1976 reads as follows : A person recruited to the Centralised Service either by direct recruitment or by probation shall be placed on probation for a period of two years, which period may be extended by the District Committee for a further period of six months. 7. From this Rule the only inference that may be drawn is that period of probation of two years could be extended by six months The omission of the words 'not exceeding', as used in Regulation 17, in Rule 27 of the Rules, 1976, cannot give rise to the inference that in the cases governed by Rule 27, probation of two years could be extended by more than six months at the pleasure of the authority time to time. If that were the intention of the Rules making authorities, then the extension could not have been limited to six months only, but the Rule would have given a full freedom to the authorities to extend the period of two years at their pleasure to unlimited extent. But that is not the case in Rule 27, which limits extension of probation period by six months. Therefore, Rule 27 of the Rules 1976, cannot be construed differently. It having remained uncontroverted that the petitioner was found suitable during the probationary period, it must be held that he stood confirmed by implication after the expiry of the probationary period, even if that is taken into consideration including the period of six months, for which that may be extended. 8. I, therefore, unhesitatingly accept the contention of the petitioner that the impugned simpliciter termination order dated 161984 (Annexure 5' to the writ petition) is absolutely illegal and invalid. 9. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 161984 (Annexure 5' to the writ petition) is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay him the arrears of the period in which he remained out of service owing to the invalid order in accordance with the law. (Petition allowed)