Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and Shashank Kumar Singh JJ. 1. This petition has been filed by an officer of the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank at Arah. The facts are short. 2. The petitioner was appointed on a probation. At the time of his appointment he was at serial no. 1 on the merit list. During the period of probation he was absent as being sick with Jaundice. The fact that he was absent and ill with Jaundice is not an issue. There is a faint plea in the counter affidavit that the petitioners absence was also due to his availing leave without pay for research work. This statement is in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner mentions that his leave had been sanctioned upon satisfaction of the Chairman. It was a medical leave and on this there is no issue. 3. It appears from the record that the cause for the extended period of probation of the petitioner was his being on leave for an unusually long time. 4. After the probation period was over, whether the first or the extended one, the petitioner found himself at the bottom of the list. The contention of the petitioner is that the regulation which governs his service particularly the aspect of probation is structured so rigidly that the evaluation of an extended period of probation cannot even be taken into account. It is contended that whether an incumbent has discharged a satisfactory extended period of probation or not, the net result will be that he will continue to remain at the botton of the list. This regulation i.e. 13(3) of the Regulation is re-produced below : "(3) In the case of an officer or employee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employees, if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch along with him." 5. One aspect needs to be noticed. What was the purpose of extending the period of probation of the petitioner? If the period of probation was unsatisfactory then the petitioner should have been out of service. May be, that it was extended to evaluate further. At the time of entering service, the petitioner was at serial no. 1 of the merit list. After he took leave and returned after extended probation, he was placed at the bottom of the list. If the period of probation was unsatisfactory then the petitioner should have been out of service. May be, that it was extended to evaluate further. At the time of entering service, the petitioner was at serial no. 1 of the merit list. After he took leave and returned after extended probation, he was placed at the bottom of the list. There is no material on record to show as to what was the reason for which the petitioner was put on extended probation. Whether it was a circumstance which was involuntary to the petitioner the record does not reflect. If the petitioner was on medical leave duly sanctioned and he was suffering from Jaundice, then, the circumstance was involuntary to the petitioner. The management, thus, may have extended the period of probation so as to judge him yet more in lieu of his absence from service. The evaluation on his extended period of probation has not been made. It cannot be reckoned because the regulation as structured prevents the management from going into this aspect. 6. Whether the management modulates its regulation in context is entirely upto the management but, in the present circumstances not to evaluate the extended period of probation of the petitioner and to mechanically put him at bottom on the list is unfair and arbitrary. 7. In the circumstances, the petition succeeds and the representation of the petitioner which was rejected on the ground of technicality that the regulation does not permit it, is an arbitrary stand on a rigid and arbitrary regulation. 8. The order dated 3 February 1998, annexure 6 to the petition of Chairman of the Bank declining to revise the seniority of the petitioner, and the order dated 21 July 1998 of the Board of the Directors on the appeal and the consequential communication dated 9.9.1998, annexure 8 to petition, are quashed. The respondents-bank will be obliged to consider and evaluate the service of the petitioner during the extended period of probation and this be done within two months from today. 9. This petition is, accordingly, allowed.