R. C. LAHOTI ( 1 ) BY this petition an employee of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF. for short) seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents to treat the petitioner as having completed satisfactorily the period of probation on 29. 9. 92 and to fix accordingly the seniority of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Constable in CISF on 30. 9. 80. On 30. 6. 92/ 22. 7. 92 a seniority list of Constables (Fire) in CISF has been issued, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown at SI. No. 105. Therein the petitioner s date of appointment is shown as 30. 4. 80 (column 7); the date of completion of probation in the present rank is shown as 29. 9. 1982 (column 11), and date of confirmation in the present rank is shown as 1. 4. 1988. According to the petitioner, he having successfully completed the period of two years probation on 29. 9. 1982, he should be treated to have been confirmed on the same date and his confirmation could not have been artifically and arbitrarily postponed to 1. 4. 88. Reliance is placed on Rule 19 of CISF Rule 1969 and law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sewa Singh Vs. Union of India (CWP 8228/82) decided on 28. 8. 90. ( 3 ) RULE 19 provides as under:- "19. Probation - (1) All appointment 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 tot be discharged in the case of a direct recruit or reverted to the substantive post in the case of a promotee. " ( 4 ) IN Sewa Singh s case (supra) their Lordships have held :- "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. It is only in the case of unsuitability that the probationer can be made to quit by an order of discharge. " ( 5 ) THE plea taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner s probation period was completed on 22. 9. 82, but the confirmation is made on the availability of permanent post/for which purpose, the petitioner s case was examined by the DPC on 16. 5. 1985, 8. 5. 1986 and 30. 6. 1987 but due to bad service record the petitioner was not found fit for confirmation. He was found so fit in the DPC held on 1. 4. 88 and was confirmed in the rank of Constable w. e. f. that day. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the procedure for confirmation adopted by the respondents is in breach of the rules and hence cannot be sustained. A bare reading of Rule 19 shows that the period for which a recruit or promottee can be put on probation is for two years. This is the rule. The exception is such special cases where the appointing authority may extend the period of probation. Unless the period of probation has been extended the appointing authority has to apply its mind to the service record of the personnel. If he is unsuitable for confirmation, then he has to,be discharged or reverted. If he has satisfactorily completed the period of probation, a declaration to that effect has to be made. If none of the two courses are followed, the result would be an automatic confirmation. ( 7 ) DURING the course of hearing, the learned counsel for respondents has made a clear and categorical statement under instructions that the petitioner s period of probation was not extended. That being the case, the petitioner stood confirmed w. e. f. 29. 9. 1982, i. e. on expiry of two years of period of probation from the date of his appointment. His confirmation could not have been postponed or made to depend many DPC held after 29. 9. 1982. The respondents decision to treat the petitioner as confirmed w. e. f. 1. 4. 88 cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) THE petition is allowed. The decision of the respondents treating the petitioner as confirmed w. e. f. 1. 4. 88 is hereby quashed. 9. 1982. The respondents decision to treat the petitioner as confirmed w. e. f. 1. 4. 88 cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) THE petition is allowed. The decision of the respondents treating the petitioner as confirmed w. e. f. 1. 4. 88 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be treated as confirmed on the post of Constable w. e. f. 29. 9. 1982 and assigned a place of seniority in the seniority list consistently therewith. No order as to the costs.