ORDER Dubey, J. -- 1. The writ petitioner has filed this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved of the order dated 27.4.1994 passed in Misc. Petition No. 1041 of 1982 and Misc. Petition No. 2173 of 1983, by Shri A.K. Mathur, J. (as he then was). 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are thus 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. The appellant was posted at Rewa where she joined her duties on 7.8.1978 and worked upto June, 1979. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred and posted at Satna where she worked from June, 1979 to June, 1980. Appellant then was transferred and posted at Sagar where the appellant worked from June, 1980 to June, 1981. Thereafter the appellant was posted at Narsinghpur. As the appellant's services were not found satisfactory, the High Court recommended to terminate the services of the appellant. On that the Government of Madhya Pradesh terminated the services of the appellant vide order dated 17.12.1981 (Annexure K of the petition) by giving one month's pay in lieu of notice under Rule 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Services) Rules, 1969 (for short' the Rules of 1960). 3. In the return filed by respondent No.2 (High Court of M.P.), it is stated that the appellant after successful completion of training, was appointed on probation for a period of two years, with effect from 7.2.1979. She was working at Rewa, as an Additional Civil Judge, Class IX and Judicial Magistrate. Her character roll for the period ending 31.3.1979 was not satisfactory. Her behaviour was also found lacking. These remarks were communicated to the appellant by the High Court by order dated 11.3.1980 (Document No.2) of the return which reads as under: "It appears to me that she has still much to learn. She has not been able so far to put her mind in the work. She IS, generally speaking not punctual. There are oral complaints that she does not give a full hearing. It is complained that her behaviour with lawyers is not good." Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Satna. She has not been able so far to put her mind in the work. She IS, generally speaking not punctual. There are oral complaints that she does not give a full hearing. It is complained that her behaviour with lawyers is not good." Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Satna. There also, several complaints were received about her work by the High Court as well as by the District Judge, Satna, where also her work was not found satisfactory. Instead of improving the appellant made certain insinuation against the District Judge, which was totally denied by the District Judge. The High Court got the matter enquired into through the Additional Registrar, wherein the appellant was not correct and the allegations against the District Judge were wrong that he adversely commented on the work of the appellant. The Additional Registrar, in his report stated that she was not-mature enough to discharge her duties, the appellant used to employ undiplomatic language, sometimes abused lawyers and that she has not been able to maintain the decorum. The adverse remarks dated 10.7.1980 (Document No.7 of the return) were communicated to the appellant which reads thus : "Ku. Khan is found wholly lacking in the basic qualities that go to make a Judge She has scant regard for truth. She is capable for indulging in audacious falsehood. She spurns discipline. She was very unpopular with the senior members of the Bar. Her relations with superiors and colleagues were also not good." 4. The Appellant, against the adverse remarks, made a representation which was not in proper manner. She also wrote a letter to Shri Justice N.C. Dwivedi, which was not warranted. All this material was placed before the Full Court Meeting dated 27.2.1981 (Document No. 12 of the return). Full Court resolved that appellant may be given a character roll warning and a chance to improve her behaviour in the Court and towards her superior officers. Appellant then was transferred to Sagar. The District Judge, Sagar was asked to keep watch on her performance. But, unfortunately, her performance at Sagar was also not good. Appellant remained at Sagar from June, 1980 to June, 1981. The District Judge, Sagar received several complaints about her work, who also remarked that the appellant was a problematic lady and her behaviour with the public and members of the Bar was not proper. She dismissed the cases in default. But, unfortunately, her performance at Sagar was also not good. Appellant remained at Sagar from June, 1980 to June, 1981. The District Judge, Sagar received several complaints about her work, who also remarked that the appellant was a problematic lady and her behaviour with the public and members of the Bar was not proper. She dismissed the cases in default. It was also remarked that she was mixed up with anti-social elements, instigating communal feelings. There were some complaints about her integrity also. It was remarked that she lacks a judicial discipline. The complaints were also received by Hon'ble the Chief Justice regarding behavour of the appellant. As the District Judge was directed to keep watch over her performance, he sent a special report dated 27.5.1981 (Document No. 15 to the return). The District Judge had also sent his earlier report dated 30.4.1981 (Document No. 16 to the return). The Full Court in its meeting dated 28-29.8.1981 (Document No. 17 to the return) considered over all performance of the appellant and resolved that the services of the appellant be terminated forthwith under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1960 by giving one month's salary. A copy of the resolution (Document No. 17 annexed with the return) reads thus: "Subject No. 15. To consider the recommendation of D.J. Sagar, in the Annual Confidential Report of Ku. Afsari Khan, Temporary Civil Judge, Class II, for the period ending 31st March, 1981. Resolved that the services of Ku. Afsari Khan, Civil Judge, Class II, be terminated forthwith under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960, on payment of month's salary in lieu of notice." 5. After hearing, the Writ Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Beena Tiwari v. State of MP. (1988 JLJ 208 = AIR 1988 SC 488 ) held that the case of the probationer Civil Judge is governed by M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules of 1955)' and not by the Rules of 1960 and for that noted the relevant observations from Smt. Beena Tiwari's case thus: "Whether a member of Subordinate Judicial Service should be confirmed or not is absolutely the concern of the High Court. The question of confirmation falls squarely within Art. 235 of the Constitution and no rule framed by the State Government can interfere with the control vested in the High Court under Art. 235. Rule 3-A of M.P. Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 is not applicable to the members of the subordinate Judicial Service of the Madhya Pradesh Government. Therefore, a member of the "M.P. Subordinate Judicial Service putting in 5 years temporary service continuously and in respect of whom a declaration under R. 3(ii) of the 1960 Rules has not been issued cannot claim that he should be deemed to be in Quasi Permanent service. On completion of probation if he is not confirmed in service then his service can be terminated by High Court. There is a specific provision for termination of service of a Judicial Officer who is found by the High Court to be unfit for confirmation as provided in R. 16(5) of the M.P. Judicial Service Rules. There is no necessity to read the words "competent authority" in place of the words "appointing authority" occurring in R. 3-A as the Rule is inapplicable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service. 1985 Lab. IC 1943 (Madh.Pra) and M.P. No. 61 of 1980 Dated 9.4.81 (M.P.) Reversed AIR 1981 SC 561 and AIR 1975 SC 613 Rel. on." 6. As the record of the appellant was not satisfactory her representation was rejected against the adverse remarks and the Full Court gave a warning to the appellat to improve, but the appellant did not improve, therefore, the Full Court, in the next meeting, after considering all the material and over all performance of the appellant came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a fit person to be retained in service. Therefore, the Full Court resolved to terminate the services of the appellant on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. The learned Single Judge, therefore, observed that the appellant was a probationer, who was not confirmed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1955, she continued to be probationer even after expiry of the period of probation. The order was not punitive. Non-communication of adverse remarks ending 31.3.1981 has no effect, as the Full Court after considering the material and over all performance had resolved that the appellant was not fit for confirmation. The order was not punitive. Non-communication of adverse remarks ending 31.3.1981 has no effect, as the Full Court after considering the material and over all performance had resolved that the appellant was not fit for confirmation. Non-recording of reason for termination in the order does not make the order illegal. as recording of reasons in the discharge order was not necessary. 7. Smt. Indira Nair learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of Rule 12(a) of the Rules of 1960, in the absence of order of confirmation, the appellant would be deemed to have been confirmed. The adverse remarks ending the period 31st March, 1981 were not communicated, therefore, the action of termination of service of the appellant is illegal, and is against the principles of natural justice. Besides the order is also liable to be quashed, as it does not contain reasons. Counsel cited the decisions, The State of Punjab v. Dharamsingh ( AIR 1968 SC 1210 ), Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1979 SC 1622 ), Samaru Das Banjare v. State of M.P. ( 1985 JLJ 460 = 1985 MPLJ 361 FB). 8. Shri V.S. Shrouti, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the service conditions of the appellant were governed by the Rules of 1955 and not by the Rules of 1960, as held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Beena Tiwari v. State of M.P. (supra) and recent decision of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Athya v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1996 JLJ 269 = 1996(1) SCC 560 ) which have been followed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 113 of 1985 (Chhitarlal Laudwal. v. State of Madhya Pradesh). decided on 15.5 .1997. In view of sub-rule (4) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1955, on the basis of unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation and no improvement shown even after warning and opportunity having been given to her, the Full Court recommended termination of her services and for this charge or enquiry was not necessary as order of discharge does not cast any stigma. Counsel cited, State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991 AIR SCW 793), Rampal Gupta v. Chief Justice, High Court of M.P. ( 1984 JLJ 586 = 1984 MPLJ 543 ). 9. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, learned counsel for the State, adopted the arguments made by Shri V.S. Shrouti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Counsel cited, State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991 AIR SCW 793), Rampal Gupta v. Chief Justice, High Court of M.P. ( 1984 JLJ 586 = 1984 MPLJ 543 ). 9. Shri A.S. Gaharwar, learned counsel for the State, adopted the arguments made by Shri V.S. Shrouti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10. It is now well settled that Rules of 1955 apply to the members of Subordinate Judicial Serive of the State of Madhya Pradesh and not the Rules of 1960 as declared by the Supreme Court in Smt. Beena Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). Satya Narayan Athya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) followed in L.P.A. No. 113 of 1995 (supra). Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Civil Judges are dealt with from Rule 19 to Rule 25 of Rules of 1955. For the purposes of this appeal Rule 24 is relevant which we quote: "24(1) Every candidate appointed to the cadre shall undergo training for a period of six months before he is appointed on probation for a period of two years, which period may be extended for a further period not exceeding 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. (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. 11. From a reading of Rule 24, it is clear that sub-rule (1) of this Rule indicates that every person appointed to .the cadre shall undergo training for a period of six months before he is appointed on probation for a period of two years, which period may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years. He may be confirmed at the end of the period of his probation subject to his fitness for confirmation, and to having passed all such departmental examinations as may be prescribed. He may be confirmed at the end of the period of his probation subject to his fitness for confirmation, and to having passed all such departmental examinations as may be prescribed. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 24 lays down that if during the period of probation if the person so appointed on probation is not found suitable for the service, the Governor may, at the time, thereafter, dispense with his service. 12. It is well settled that whether a member of Subordinate Judicial Service should be confirmed or not is absolutely the concern of the High Court. The question of confirmation falls squarely within Art. 235 of the Constitution and no rule framed by the State Government can interfere with the control vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution. See- Smt. Beena Tiwari v. State of MP. (supra). 13. The question whether a probationery Civil Judge after completion of a period of two years "On probation, in the absence of any order, will be deemed to be confirmed or not was considered by the Supreme Court in Satya Narayan Athya v. State of MP. (supra). After considering the scope of Rule 24(1) of Rules of 1955, the Supreme Court observed thus: "A reading thereof 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 completion of two years, he must not be deemed to be confirmed automatically. There is no order of confirmation. Until the order is passed, he must be deemed to continue on probation. " 14. Therefore, in view of Rule 24(1), as the appellant, even at the end of extended period of probation, was not confirmed, in the absence of confirmation, the appellant cannot claim that she would be deemed to be confirmed automatically. There is no order of confirmation. Until the order is passed, he must be deemed to continue on probation. " 14. Therefore, in view of Rule 24(1), as the appellant, even at the end of extended period of probation, was not confirmed, in the absence of confirmation, the appellant cannot claim that she would be deemed to be confirmed automatically. On the other hand as no order of confirmation was passed, the appellant would be deemed to continue on probation. 15. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Samar Das Benjare v. State of M.P. ( 1985 JLJ 460 = 1985 MPLJ 361 FB) was also challenged before the Supreme Court, the appeal of which was decided along with Smt. Beena Tiwari's case (supra), wherein it has been held that Rule 3-A of Rules of 1960 is not applicable in case of members of Subordinate Judicial Service. 16. The decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Dharampal Singh ( AIR 1968 SC 1210 ) has no application in the facts of the case as in that case Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961 prohibits extension of probation period beyond 3 years. Therefore, it was observed that as the petitioner was allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of 3 years and no express order of confirmation was passed, he must be deemed to have been confirmed in that post. 17. In the person case, the over-all performance of the appellant was unsatisfactory as is evident from adverse remarks contained in annual confidential reports communicated to her against which the representation made, was rejected by the Full Court. Though, the adverse remarks ending March, 1981 were not communicated, but that would not make any difference, as the appellant did not improve inspite of the warning and opportunity given to her. Therefore, in the circumstances, as the appellant was continuing on probation, her services were dispensed with as over-all performance was not satisfactory and, therefore, the appellant was not found suitable for confirmation. Hence, it was not necessary that before the termination, there ought to have been any notice or enquiry. Therefore, the order of termination cannot be said to be illegal. See Satya Narayan Athya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Jai Kishan v. Commissioner of Police and another [(1995) Supp. 3 SCC 364)]. Hence, it was not necessary that before the termination, there ought to have been any notice or enquiry. Therefore, the order of termination cannot be said to be illegal. See Satya Narayan Athya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Jai Kishan v. Commissioner of Police and another [(1995) Supp. 3 SCC 364)]. The decision of Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1979 SC 1622 ) is inapplicable in the facts of the present case. 17. In the result, this intra Court appeal is devoid of substance and is dismissed with no order as to costs.