K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are directed against the Government notification bearing No. LAW 59 LAC 2003, dated 30-4-2003, whereby discharging the petitioners from the Kamataka Judicial Service. ( 2 ) THE respondents are represented by Sri Kempanna, learned government Pleader. ( 3 ) HEARD common arguments. ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petitions may be stated as under.- by means of impugned notification bearing No. LAW 106 LAC 97, dated 18-2-1998 by the Law Department, the petitioners were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Kamataka Judicial Service. After the petitioners underwent the training conducted by the respondent 2, the petitioners were given postings. It is the case of the petitioners that they have served the subordinate judiciary of the State of Kamataka from 2-3-1998 till the petitioners were discharged on 30-4-2003 from service. On 30-4-2003, by impugned notification, the petitioners were discharged from the Karnataka Judicial service with immediate effect under Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. This is impugned in these two petitions. The following common grounds have been urged.- (a) that the order of discharge made against the petitioners is a stigma. (b) that the order of discharge has been passed without holding a regular enquiry as prescribed in the Karnataka Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. (c) that the communication received by each of the petitioners regarding adverse remarks made in their Confidential reports is without basis. (d) that since the petitioners have not received any reply after they submitted representation for expunging the remarks, it shall be presumed that the adverse remarks are deemed to be expunged. (e) that the petitioners have not received any communication extending the period of probation. (f) that the impugned notification suffers from non-application of mind by the concerned authority. ( 5 ) THE respondents have filed statement of objections admitting that the petitioners were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division), but denied the grounds urged in the writ petitions. It is stated that delay in issuance of an order under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil services (Probation) Rules, 1977, shall not be presumed that the probationary period was satisfactorily completed. It is stated that delay in issuance of an order under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil services (Probation) Rules, 1977, shall not be presumed that the probationary period was satisfactorily completed. It is further contended that during the period of probation, the performance of the petitioners was found to be wanting in several respects and in spite of bringing to the notice of the petitioners with regard to adverse remarks made in the confidential report of the petitioners, there was no progress or improvement in the petitioners' performance. Therefore, on the basis of the recommendation, the petitioners were discharged from State judicial service as their services were found unsatisfactory to hold the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division ). It is further contended that non-compliance of Rule 10 (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 1994 is untenable and misleading, as the rules have been repealed and amended by the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 2000 and under Rule 1l (3) (b) of the latter-said Rules, the application of 1994 Rules is specifically excluded insofar as the members of the Karnataka Judicial Services are concerned. Further, the discharge of the petitioners is a discharge simpliciter of probationer and does not cast stigma on the petitioners. With regard to the contention of the petitioners that no regular enquiry was held, the respondents have contended that no regular enquiry was required under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, since no punishment was imposed and therefore the application of the above said Rules does not arise. It is contended that the petitioners continued to be a probationer in the absence of specific order regarding successful completion of probationary period. Therefore, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground that there is no merit in the writ petitions. ( 6 ) SRI Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, in support of the case of the petitioners, cited the following decisions.- (I) Dr. Therefore, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground that there is no merit in the writ petitions. ( 6 ) SRI Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, in support of the case of the petitioners, cited the following decisions.- (I) Dr. Rajpal Bhatia, Medical Officer of Health, Municipal corporation, Amritsar v State of Punjab and Others; (ii) Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v State of Punjab; (iii) State of Haryana v P. C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of police and Another; (iv) Madan Mohan Choudhary v State of Bihar and Others; (v) Nepal Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; (vi) Dipti Prakash Banerjee v Satvendra Nath Base National centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others; (vii) Ajit Singh and Others u State of Punjab and Another; (viii) Registrar, High Court of Madras v R. Rajiah; (ix) Shiv Kumar Sharma v Haryana State Electricity Board, chandigarh and Others; (x) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v s. Manjunath, (xi) V. P. Ahuja v State of Punjab and Others; (xii) Wasim Beg v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; (xiii) Dayaram Dayal u State of Madhya Pradesh and Another; (xiv) State of Punjab u Dharam Singh. ( 7 ) SRI Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in W. P. No. 36873 of 2003, has cited the following decisions.- (I) R. C. Sood v High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan and others; (ii) Prithipal Singh v State of Punjab and Another. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader has cited the following decisions.- (I) Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Others v Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali; (ii) Samsher Singh and Another v State of Punjab and Another ; (iii) Union of India v P. S. Bhatt; (iv) Ranendra Chandra Banerjee v Union of India and Others; (v) State of Gujarat u Akhilesh C. Bharagava; (vi) Hukam Chand Khundia v Chandigarh Administration and another; (vii) H. F. Sangati u Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and Others; (viii) Unit Trust of India and Others v T. Bijaya Kumar and another; (ix) Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v State of Madhya Pradesh; (x) K. V. Krishnamani v Lalit Kala Academy ; (xi) State of Punjab v Balde v Singh Khosla; (xii) Dhanjibhai Ramjibhai v State of Gujarat; (xiii) Satya Narayan Athya u High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another; (xiv) 1971 (1) SLR 679; (xv) H. F. Sangati's case. ( 9 ) THE petitioners were recruited to the Karnataka State Judicial services as per the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (in short, 'the KJS Rules' ). As per the KJS Rules probation is for two years. It is useful to excerpt Rule 5 of the Probation Rules for immediate reference, which reads as under.-"5. Declaration of satisfactory completion of probation etc.- (1) At the end of the prescribed or, as the case may be, the reduced or extended period of probation, the appointing authority shall consider the suitability of the probationer to hold the post to which he was appointed, and (a) if it decides that the probationer is suitable to hold the post to which he was appointed and has passed the special examinations or tests, if any, required to be passed during the period of probation it shall, as soon as possible, issue an order declaring the probationer to have satisfactorily completed his probation and such an order shall have effect from the date of expiry of the prescribed, reduced or extended period of probation; (b) if the appointing authority decides that the probationer is not suitable to hold the post to which he was appointed or has not passed the special examinations or special tests, if any, required to be passed during the period of probation, if shall, unless the period of probation is extended under Rule 4, by order, discharge him from service. (2) A probationer shall not be considered to have satisfactorily completed the probation unless a specific order to that effect is passed. Any delay in the issue of an order under sub-rule (1) shall not entitle the probationer to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation". As per Rule 5 (2) of the Probation Rules, it is crystal-clear that a probationer shall not be considered to have satisfactorily completed the probation unless a specific order to that effect is passed. Any delay in the issue of an order under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Probation Rules shall not entitle the probationer to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation. Any delay in the issue of an order under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Probation Rules shall not entitle the probationer to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation. In view of the clarity in Rule 5 of the Probation rules regarding any delay in the issue of order under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, the probationer shall not entitle to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his probation, the contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners that non-compliance of Rule 4 regarding non-extension of the period of probation and discharging the petitioners after 5 years in illegal holds no water. Further, when declaration of probation of Judicial Officers, who have assumed charge on 2-3-1998 was taken up, the Full Court in its Resolution dated 5-2-2003, declared the period of probation to have satisfactorily completed in respect of 30 civil Judges (Junior Division); with regard to 20 others, the period of probation was extended and 4 Judicial Officers viz. , the present petitioners and one K. Krishnamurthy proposed to be discharged on the ground that the Judicial Officers are not suitable to hold the post, to which they were appointed. ( 10 ) I have perused the Confidential Reports of the petitioners. The full Court has considered the Confidential Report of the petitioners for the relevant period and came to a conclusion that the petitioners are not suitable to hold the post. After the Full Court resolved to discharge the petitioners under Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Probation Rules, and recommendation of the High Court of Karnataka, the Governor, who is the Appointing Authority, has passed the impugned notification. The contention of the petitioners that the impugned order is a stigma is contrary to decision rendered by the Apex Court in H. F. Sangati's case. What language in the termination order would amount to a stigma? generally speaking, when a Probationer's appointment is terminated, it means that the Probationer is unfit for job; whether by reason of misconduct or ineptitude, whatever may be the language used in the termination order. Although strictly speaking, the stigma is implicit in the termination, but a simple termination is not a stigma. In Sangati case, the Apex Court dealt with the question whether an order terminating the appointment of a Probationer Munsiff could be considered to be punitive? Although strictly speaking, the stigma is implicit in the termination, but a simple termination is not a stigma. In Sangati case, the Apex Court dealt with the question whether an order terminating the appointment of a Probationer Munsiff could be considered to be punitive? The Apex Court has held that during the period of Probation, several adverse remarks had been made in the Confidential Records of the probationer and the High Court considered the Confidential Reports and came to the conclusion that the Officer was not fit to be confirmed in the post of a judicial officer and the State Government accepted the recommendation of the High Court and discharged the probationer from the service. The order of termination of the officer on the ground that he was 'unsuitable to hold the post of Munsiff was not punitive and it did not cast any stigma on the officer. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners that the impugned order of discharge is a stigma and no enquiry was held holds no water. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned Counsels for the parties that the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 1994/2000 are applicable to the Officers of the Karnataka Judicial service holds no water, as Rule l (3) (b) of the Rules, 1994/2000 expressly states that the Rules are not applicable to the Officers of the Karnataka judicial Service. ( 12 ) IN view of the decisions of the Apex Court in H. F. Sangati's case and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate institute, of Medical Sciences and Another, the decisions cited by the learned Counsels for the petitioners are of no avail to the case of the petitioners. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons said supra, I hold that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, I pass the following order: the writ petitions fail and they are hereby dismissed. No costs. The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks. --- *** --- .