ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. Writ Petitioner has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arising out of order dated 11-5-1994, passed in M.P. No. 2729/83 by Shri A. K. Mathur, J. (as he then was). After selection and recommendation by the Public Service Commission, the Appellant vide order dated 18-7-1978 was appointed temporarily as Civil Judge, Class II, in M.P. Judicial Service on the condition of completion of six months' training and then on probation for a period of two years. After completion of training the Appellant was posted as First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class II at Bhopal vide order dated 28th August, 1978. He was posted as Judicial Magistrate, First Class/I Vth Civil Judge, Class II at Gwalior vide order dated 8-11-1979. Thereafter, he was transferred from Gwalior to Harsud District Khandwa on 20-5-1980. From there he was transferred on 18-5-1982 to Sarangpur. From Sarangpur the Appellant was transferred to Shahdol on 9-2-1983. His services were terminated by order dated 30th August, 1983 by giving one month's pay in lieu of notice in exercise of powers under Rule 12(1) of the M.P. Government Servant (Temporary and Quasi Permanent) Service Rules, 1960 (for short Rules of 1960) as his service was not found satisfactory and he was not found suitable for the service in view of Rule 24 of M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 (for short Rules of 1955). The Appellant challenged the order on the ground that after completion of six months training the Appellant continuously worked satisfactorily for more than two years. As no order either of extension of period of probation or of confirmation was issued, therefore, after the expiry of period of probation, he would be deemed to be confirmed. Against the adverse remark in the year 1988 of monthly disposal being quite poor hardly 19% the Appellant made a representation explaining the reason for poor disposal on account of strike of lawyers at Gwalior. Another adverse entry of the next following year about his relationship with the members of the bar being cordial except one or two individual grudges was communicated at Sarangpur against which he filed a representation. When he was at Shahdol he was communicated with adverse entry of which he filed representation on 12-9-1983. Another adverse entry of the next following year about his relationship with the members of the bar being cordial except one or two individual grudges was communicated at Sarangpur against which he filed a representation. When he was at Shahdol he was communicated with adverse entry of which he filed representation on 12-9-1983. The Appellant averred that no orders were communicated on his representations and abruptly termination of his service in violation of principles of natural justice was passed. In reply to averments made by the Appellant in writ petition, it was stated that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beena Tiwari and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, the Full Court after considering the work, conduct and performance of the Appellant during the probationary period was not found satisfactory, he was found unsuitable, hence, he was not confirmed and his service was dispensed with under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of the Rules of 1955. The learned Single Judge observed that the three adverse entries and the representations filed by the Appellant were considered by the Full Court and the Full Court did not feel to expunge the adverse remarks, adverse remarks remained intact, hence dismissed the petition. Against the order of learned Single Judge, the Appellant filed a SLP No. .....of 1995 (Chitanlal v. State of M. P) The Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 31-3-1995 dismissed the SLP observing that there is a Letters Patent Appeal available to the Appellant, he may resort to it first. Shri Abhay Sapre, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge did not take into account that because of the strike of members of the bar in the year 1980 for long the Appellant's disposal was low. The other entries are not adverse, the Appellant was allowed to continue to discharge his duties even after expiry of probationary period. Therefore, as no order was passed of his discontinuance or confirmation, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed after completion of his two years probation, thus he acquired the status of a quasi permanent employee. It was submitted that the order passed is violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, as no order was passed of his discontinuance or confirmation, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed after completion of his two years probation, thus he acquired the status of a quasi permanent employee. It was submitted that the order passed is violative of principles of natural justice. Shri Ravish Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Full Court after considering the overall performance and record of the Appellant, had taken a decision that the Appellant is not suitable for the judicial service. There is no allegation of any malice or motive against the District Judge who recorded the adverse entries. The Appellant was a probationer, he was discharged from service simpliciter without any stigma, hence the principles of natural justice do not apply. The case of the Appellant is governed by Rules of 1955, Rules of 1960 have no application. Counsel cited Bina Tiwari's case (supra) and a recent decision in Satya Narayan Athya Vs. High Court of M.P. and another, . By executive instructions Rules of 1955 framed under Article 389 of the Constitution of India after reorganisation of State have been adopted by the New State of M.P. as a guide for recruitment of the Judicial Service of the State, as held by the decision of this Court in Anant Kumar Polekar v. State of M.P., 1975 MPLJ 624 , Jayant Kumar Chouhan v. Public Service Commission, 1978 MPLJ 784 . The Supreme Court in Bina Tiwari's case (supra) and in Satya Narayan Athya's case (supra) has observed that the confirmation of a probationer in service and whether such probationer would be deemed to have been confirmed after completion of two years of probation has to be considered. Rule 24 of the Rules of 1955 as adopted, which reads thus: 24 (1) Every candidate appointed to the cadre shall undergo training period of six months before he is appointed or probation for a period of two years. The probationers may, at the end of the period of their probation, be confirmed subject to their fitness for confirmation and to having passed, by the higher standard, all such departmental examinations as may be prescribed. (2) During the period of probation, he shall be required to do magisterial work and acquire experience in office routine and procedure. The probationers may, at the end of the period of their probation, be confirmed subject to their fitness for confirmation and to having passed, by the higher standard, all such departmental examinations as may be prescribed. (2) During the period of probation, he shall be required to do magisterial work and acquire experience in office routine and procedure. (3) If during the period of probation has not passed the prescribed departmental examinations, or has been found otherwise unsuitable for the Service, the Governor may, at the time, thereafter, dispense with his service. In Satya Narayan Athya's case (supra), the Supreme Court, considered the question whether probationer Civil Judge after completion of his period of two years in the absence of any order will be deemed to be confirmed or not and observed that a reading of Rule 24(1) would clearly indicate that every candidate appointed to the cadre shall undergo training initially for a period of six months before he is appointed on probation for a period of two years. On his completion of two years of probation, it may be open to the High Court either to confirm or extend the probation. At the end of the probation period, if he is not confirmed on being found unfit, it may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years. It is seen, that though there is no order of extension, it must be deemed that he was continued on probation for an extended period of two years. On his completion of two years, he must not be deemed to be confirmed automatically, if there is no order of confirmation. Until the order is passed, he must be deemed to continue on probation. Therefore, in the absence of the order of confirmation after the expiry of initial period of two years of probation the Appellant continued as probationer till the end of his service and not as a confirmed Civil Judge. It is well settled that during the period of probation, the employer/authority concerned is entitled to assess the suitability of the candidates and if it is found that the candidate is not suitable to remain in service, the employer/authority is entitled to record a finding of unsatisfactory performance and duty. It is well settled that during the period of probation, the employer/authority concerned is entitled to assess the suitability of the candidates and if it is found that the candidate is not suitable to remain in service, the employer/authority is entitled to record a finding of unsatisfactory performance and duty. Under these circumstances, necessarily the appointing authority has to look into the performance of work and duty during the period of probation and on assessment of the work and performance if a finding of unsatisfactory work is recorded during the probation period the service of such probationer is liable to be terminated in terms of conditions of appointment without conducting an enquiry. That does not amount to any stigma. If the record does not support such a conclusion reached by the authority a different complexion would arise. See: Kunwar Arun Kumar Vs. U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd. and Others, . When a Judicial Officer is selected for appointment, after completion of training he is appointed on two years probation, which can further be extended for a period of two years, this period of two years or extended period enables a probationer to improve his efficiency and quality in the service for confirmation and if he does not, he is liable to be discharged, of which the Full Court takes a decision on the basis of the record of service. It is well settled that when the Full Court takes a decision after considering the performance and the record of the service of a Judicial Officer and after due deliberation contributed by the Chief Justice and every Judge of the High Court in the matter of confirmation, promotion and supersession who man the subordinate judiciary that cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal or a motivated decision. See.: High Court of M.P. Vs. Mahesh Prakash and others, . In the present case, there is no allegation of mala fide or arbitrariness, hence, we are of the view that when Full Court after considering the overall assessment of his work and conduct and adverse remarks being not expunged did not confirm on factual basis. The order being not stigmatic, passed under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 of Rules 1955 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. In the result appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.