JUDGMENT : Prasanna B. Varale, J. This intra court appeal calls in question the order dated 31.10.2022 whereby learned Single Judge of this court has dismissed appellant's W.P.No.23345/2021 and thereby negatived the challenge to her removal from service. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that his client was appointed as a permanent teacher in the first respondent-Educational Institution; she had remained absent only for a short period of 5 days and a plausible explanation having been offered therefor, the removal from service is liable to be set at naught. This aspect having not been properly discussed by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order needs to be set aside and writ petition has to be allowed. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate on request appearing for the 2nd respondent-Joint Director of Public Instruction opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. She contends that there is absolutely no material to show that petitioner was appointed preceded by selection and that even otherwise there is no declaration of satisfactory completion of probationary period and therefore she cannot be said to be a permanent member of the cadre. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with reasoning of the learned Single Judge's order. The vehement submission of appellant's counsel that the continuation of an employee beyond the maximum period of probation per se amounts to declaration of satisfactory completion of his probationary period, is bit difficult to countenance. True it is, that his reliance on a learned Single Judge's order in the case of POORNAPRAJNA EDUCATION CENTRE vs. PUSHPA, CDJ 2002 KAR HC 306 supports such a view. However, we do not subscribe to the said view inasmuch as, the same is inconsistent with the well established norm of Service Jurisprudence. 4. The Apex Court in the case of DURGABAI DESHMUKH MEMORIAL SR. SEC. SCHOOL vs. J.A.J. VASU SENA, (2019) 17 SCC 157 at para 35 has observed as under: "35. Admittedly, the appointment letter does not stipulate that the first respondent shall be confirmed upon the expiry of the probationary period. Rule 105(2) stipulates that an order of confirmation may be issued “if the work and conduct of an employee during the period of probation is found to be satisfactory”. Admittedly, the appointment letter does not stipulate that the first respondent shall be confirmed upon the expiry of the probationary period. Rule 105(2) stipulates that an order of confirmation may be issued “if the work and conduct of an employee during the period of probation is found to be satisfactory”. Rule 105(2) lays down a condition precedent to the issuance of an order of confirmation. It is only if the appointing authority is satisfied with the performance of the probationer that an order of confirmation may be issued. Rule 105(2) contains an explicit stipulation requiring the issuance of an order of confirmation by the appointing authority upon its assessment that the performance of the probationer has been satisfactory. The mere continuation of the services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to a deemed confirmation in service. It is only upon the issuance of an order of confirmation by the appointing authority that probationer is granted substantive appointment in the post". We may also refer to Late Justice M. Rama Jois in his "Services under the State" N.M.Tripathi Publication, 1987 at page 392 writes as under: "Continuance after expiry of probation effect: A person appointed on probation becomes a permanent employee only after the issue of an express order of confirmation. By the mere expiry of the period of probation and continuing in service after the expiry of the period of probation, a civil servant does not automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of the service, unless the rules expressly provide for automatic confirmation. Even after the declaration of the satisfactory completion of probation a civil servant does not acquire substantive status or permanent appointment unless an express order is passed confirming him in that post". 5. The other contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that his client was away from service only for a period of 5 days and therefore the removal on that ground is disproportionately on the higher side, again is not acceptable. Learned Single Judge after perusing the records has accepted the finding of the Educational Appellate Tribunal recorded in its order dated 22.10.2021 that the appellant was only a contract employee and was working as a part time teacher and further that her such appointment having not being confirmed she was discharged from service w.e.f. 26.07.2013. Learned Single Judge after perusing the records has accepted the finding of the Educational Appellate Tribunal recorded in its order dated 22.10.2021 that the appellant was only a contract employee and was working as a part time teacher and further that her such appointment having not being confirmed she was discharged from service w.e.f. 26.07.2013. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has rightly recorded a further finding that the appellant was 'chronically absent before the institution and as her teaching was not upto the mark, her employment was not made as permanent'. The appellant despite service of notice from the management, did not offer her explanation for remaining absent for quite a long period. In fact, there is some evidentiary material based on which the Tribunal said that she was unable to attend the work because of ill health of her daughter. In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy.