efficiency as may be pointed out, and improve his quality of service for confirmation. However, in view of the language in sub-rule (7) of Rule 7, the operation of Rule 7 (6) is subject to the confirmation on satisfactory completion of the probation. In this case, there is no express order of confirmation of probation and substantive appointment, after completion of the probation. It must be deemed that, after the expiry of three years, he remained to be a probationer. Therefore, the declaration that he was a confirmed probationer is bad in law. The learned counsel seeks to place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Om Parkash Maurya v. U.P.Coop. Sugar Factories Federation , in particular, in para 3 thereof. In that case, there was no provision similar to sub-rule (7) of Rule 7. That relates to appointment by promotion and the period of probation was prescribed for two years. Under this situation, this Court had held that after the expiry of two years, he cannot be reverted to the substantive post but deemed to be confirmed. The ratio therein has no application to the fact-situation and the rule position in this case. The probationer appointed under Rule 7 (1) requires to be appointed eventually to a substantive appointment by separate order. Therefore, satisfactory completion of the probation and the declaration of confirmation are two conditions precedent to eventual substantive appointment to the post in which
