JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, J. - In the present writ petition filed by Sri Niranjan Panda against Orissa State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. the following reliefs have been sought for: issue notice to the opposite parties.Upon return thereto hear the parties and/or their counsel and after hearing be pleased to quash Annexure-5 and other order that may deem fit and proper be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case 2. In fact, the Petitioner has precisely asked for quashing the impugned order of the General Manager, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation dated 1st. March, 1995 reverting him to his former post of Accounts Clerk from the post of Junior Accountant 's per Annexure-5. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order of reversion was illegal and not sustainable in law. The Petitioner joined in Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation and was terminated on 14-8-1968 due to abolition of Paradeep Sub-division. Subsequently by order of the Government of Orissa in the Department of Planning and Co-ordination the Petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk and joined on 1-12-1969, in the establishment of Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short O.S.R.T.C.) and continued in his service. While so continuing the Petitioner appeared at Part-I Accounts Examination in the year 1978 conducted by the Board of Revenue. The Petitioner also appeared, 'Part-II Examination in the year 1979. 4. It is stated that the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Accountant w.e.f. 26-11-1984 pending final selection by the Central Selection Committee on probation for a,period of six months or till finalisation of selection whichever was earlier. It is alleged that even within the period of six months there was no final selection' by the Central Selection Committee. Accordingly the Petitioner was allowed to continue till he was finally selected by the Central Selection Committee as per Office Order dated 8-11-1991. But he was again placed under probation for a period of two years from the date of issue of the order. Before the Petitioner was finally selected by the Central Selection Committee he underwent Accounts and Audit training in the Training Institute of the Corporation, and came out successful in,the said training. In the year 1992- the Petitioner was transferred from Bhubaneswar to the office of the Assistant Transport Manager (A), Narasinghpur in the capacity of Junior Accountant by order dated 29-9-1992. In the year 1992- the Petitioner was transferred from Bhubaneswar to the office of the Assistant Transport Manager (A), Narasinghpur in the capacity of Junior Accountant by order dated 29-9-1992. When he was continuing as such opposite party No. 3 by Office Order dated 18-3-1994 directed the Petitioner to remain in charge of Senior Accountant to supervise the accounts work. When the performance of the Petitioner was shown well and satisfactory, all on a sudden by Office Order dated 1-3-1995 the Petitioner had been reverted to the post of Accounts Clerk on the ground that his performance in the higher post was found not satisfactory. It is stated in the writ petition that the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Chairman-cum, Managing Director of the Corporation seeking redressal of his grievance, but he was intimated by letter dated 3-5-1995 that his representation had been rejected by the Chairman-cum-Managing. Director. The Petitioner has not been communicated the reasons for which the representation was rejected. No notice was served on him. Never any disciplinary proceeding had been started. The impugned order of reversion suffers from irregularities and illegalities as alleged. The Petitioner completed the probation period upto 7-11-1993 and he could not be reverted to any lower post without any sort of enquiry. The Petitioner has sought for the relief as already indicated above. 5. The writ petition was opposed by the opposite parties by filing a comprehensive counter affidavit. Besides controverting the allegations of the Petitioners it was submitted that the Petitioner along with others were promoted without selection on ad hoc basis-to the post of Junior Accountant with effect from 26-11-1984 for a period of six months and it was extended intermittently due to non-availability of Selection Committee. Considering the seniority of the Petitioner he was appointed on ad hoc basis along with others. Thereafter considering long continuance of the Petitioner as Junior Accountant on ad hoc basis he was only provisionally appointed on probation for a period of two years on compassionate ground. During the probation period when his performance was not found satisfactory he was reverted to his earlier post of Accounts Clerk by Office Order dated 1-3-1995 (Annexure-5). The order neither casts stigma nor it is a punishment. There was no requirement of starting any disciplinary proceeding against him. 6. He have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Dash for the Petitioner and Mr. The order neither casts stigma nor it is a punishment. There was no requirement of starting any disciplinary proceeding against him. 6. He have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Dash for the Petitioner and Mr. Mohanty for the opposite' parties. It is argued on behalf of the writ Petitioner: that on being selected by the Central Selection Committee he having served about for four years in higher post shouldering all responsibilities without any blemish, the impugned order of reversion should not have been pased against him.. In support of such submission Mr. Dash has relied on the decision reported in Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India (UOI), and Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Another. The gist of the decision was that more use of expression like "terminate" or "discharge" was not conclusive and in spite of the use of such words Court may determine the true nature of the order to ascertain whether the action taken against the employee was punitive in nature. By lifting the veil, it was found that the action taken against probationers was punitive in nature. Attention of the Court was drawn to the decision reported in Sukhbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab. It has been held that a probationer cannot after expiry of probationary period automatically acquire the status of permanent member of a service, unless of course, the rules under which he is appointed expressly provide that where a probationer is not reverted by the Government before termination of his period of probation be.continues to be a probationer but acquires the qualification for substantive/permanent appointment. 7. There is also reference to 1997 L.I.C. 3330 (Dayaram Dayal v. State of M.P. and Anr. regarding confirmation. Confirmation can be deemed when maximum period of probation is fixed by rules. The rule provides original period and maximum period to which probation can be extended and on expiry of maximum period the employee would be deemed to be confirmed. There is also reference to 1987 (2) O.L.R. 179 (N.C. Mohanty v. OSIC Ltd. and Ors.. In this case the Petitioner was on probation for 2 years after direct recruitment but there was no order passed by the Managing Director extending probation for one year more. On the other hand order was passed giving the Petitioner increment of pay and he was deemed to be permanent.. In this case the Petitioner was on probation for 2 years after direct recruitment but there was no order passed by the Managing Director extending probation for one year more. On the other hand order was passed giving the Petitioner increment of pay and he was deemed to be permanent.. The termination of service with three months notice was found to be illegal. 8. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties argued that there was no rule of automatic conformation after expiry of the probation period. The Petitioner worked on ad hoc basis as Junior Accountant and after selection he was under probation and after probation period there was no specific confirmation and the Petitioner cannot make any grievance in the manner as alleged. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties and 'on going through the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that in absence of any service rules, an employee cannot ask for automatic confirmation after expiry of the probation period. Undisputedly in the present case the Petitioner was not confirmed after probation. No service rule has been brought to our notice to show that the Petitioner can ask for automatic confirmation. True it is, he has served for a long period, but in absence of any rule to confirm him automatically after expiry of the probation period, the action taken by the opposite parties by the impugned order under Annexure-5 cannot be said to be illegal or irregular, necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 10. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition tails and the same is dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. R.K. Dash. J. I agree. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed