ORDER : Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. Heard. 1.The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider for taking back the service of the petitioner in the post of Subedar within reasonable period, in accordance with Rule 9 of Rules, 1961, treating the service of the petitioner as deemed confirmed in the post of Subedar under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1997. 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2.The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of ‘Subedar' on probation for a period of two years under the Police Department on 14.07.2000 according to the Madhya Pradesh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 (for short’ the Rules of 1997’). The petitioner had to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, she sought a No Objection Certificate from the Director General of Police on 24.09.2004 and on 23.09.2005 the same was granted to the petitioner. A decision was taken by the High Court of Chhattisgarh that the services of the petitioner as Subedar from 18.08.2000 to 17.10.2006 would be included for pension purposes. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Civil Judge on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 22.09.2006 but before completion of the probation period of two years, her services were discharged on 06.11.2009. After discharge from the post of Civil Judge, the petitioner applied under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’) before the Director General of Police to take back her services to the post of Subedar. 3.Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner moved an application under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961 which says that a person already in permanent government service appointed to another service or post by direct recruitment, be appointed in an officiating capacity for the period of two years to ascertain his suitability for the service or post. He further submitted that the petitioner after obtaining due permission from the Director General of Police participated in the recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge and she was appointed for the period of two years on probation but her services were discharged vide order dated 06.11.2009. He also submitted that the Director General of Police ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Subedar as per the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961. He fairly submitted that though the services of the petitioner were not confirmed on the post of Subedar, she was a probationer. He further argued that after completion of two years on the post of Subedar though a specific order was not issued with regard to confirmation, in the absence of any provision or extension, the petitioner had attained the status of the confirmed government servant. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Head Master Lawrence School Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu and another reported in AIR 2012 SC 1571 . 4.On the other hand, Ms. Sonkar, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. She submitted that Rule 14 of the Rules of 1997 deals with Probation. She further submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Subedar on probation for a period of two years and according to Rule 14(5) of the Rules of 1997, the probation period could be extended if the candidate fails to attain prescribed standards. She also argued that the services of the petitioner on the post of Subedar were never confirmed and in between she applied for the post of Civil Judge and she was appointed on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 22.09.2006. It is argued that before the completion of the probation period, she was discharged from service. She further contended that though the petitioner approached the authority for appointment on the post of Subedar, in the absence of any Rule, her request was turned down. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School and another Vs. She further contended that though the petitioner approached the authority for appointment on the post of Subedar, in the absence of any Rule, her request was turned down. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School and another Vs. J.A.J. Vasu Sena and another reported in 2019 (17) SCC 157 where it is held that the continuation of the services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not amount to a deemed confirmation of service. She lastly submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Subedar on probation for a period of two years and before confirmation, she applied for the post of Civil Judge after obtaining due permission from the Department. She was appointed as a Civil Judge on 22.09.2006 but before completion of the probation period, she was discharged from service and thereafter she moved an application under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961. 7. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1961 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “Rule 9. Trial for suitability of officiating Government servants- (1) A person already in permanent Government service appointed to another service or post by direct recruitment, promotion or transfer shall ordinarily be appointed in an officiating capacity for a period of two years to ascertain his suitability for the service or post: Provided that the Government may declare that any previous officiation in such a service or post may be counted towards the period of trial to such extent as may be specified in the particular case : Provided further that if the Government servant is appointed to a post to which direct recruitment is also made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules governing appointments to such post then the period of officiation shall be equal to the period of probation prescribed for a person appointed by direct recruitment to the said post under the rules.” 8. The word used in Rule 9 is the ‘permanent government servant’ but in the present case, the petitioner was a probationer and her services were not confirmed, therefore, her status cannot be equated with the ‘permanent government servant’. 9. The word used in Rule 9 is the ‘permanent government servant’ but in the present case, the petitioner was a probationer and her services were not confirmed, therefore, her status cannot be equated with the ‘permanent government servant’. 9. Rule 14(5) of the Rules of 1997 clearly states that the probation period could be extended if the candidate fails to attain prescribed standards. 10. In the present case, the probation period of the petitioner even after completion of two years on the post of Subedar was not confirmed, therefore, it can be inferred that it could have been extended by the higher authorities. As no specific order was passed in this regard, the principle of deemed confirmation would not attract in the absence of the relevant provisions. 11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial (supra) in para 57.2 while dealing with a similar issue held as under:- “57.2 Rule 105(2) stipulates a condition precedent to the issuance of an order of confirmation. The continuation of the services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not amount to a deemed confirmation of service. It is only upon the issuance of an order of confirmation by the appointing authority that a probationer is confirmed in service.” 12. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Civil Judge but before confirmation, her services were discharged and then she moved an application but as the petitioner was not a permanent government servant, her claim was rejected. 13.The judgment cited by Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the matter of Head Master, Lawrence School (supra), it was held that if the Rules do not empower the appointing authority to extend the probation beyond the prescribed period, or where the rules are absent about confirmation or passing of the prescribed test for confirmation it is an indication of the satisfactory completion of probation. 14. In the present case, there is no provision for the extension of the probation period, therefore, it cannot be held that there was a deemed confirmation on the said post. 15.Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Rule 14 of the Rules of 1997, in the considered opinion of this Court, the authorities have not committed any error of law in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 15.Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Rule 14 of the Rules of 1997, in the considered opinion of this Court, the authorities have not committed any error of law in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).