Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kisan Bhojane, was appointed as a Senior Clerk by the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation (Respondent No.1) on probation for one year from 11 August 2011. The appointment order contained a clause that if his work was unsatisfactory, his services could be terminated during the probation period. The petitioner completed the probationary period on 10 August 2012 without any adverse remarks or termination order. He continued working thereafter. On 31 January 2013, the respondents terminated his services without any inquiry or show cause notice. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the termination order and reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The respondents argued that the petitioner was still on probation and could be terminated without cause. The court examined the service regulations and found that upon completion of the probationary period without any order of extension or termination, the employee is deemed to have been confirmed. The termination order was therefore illegal. The court allowed the petition, quashed the termination order, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages, as the petitioner had not worked during the intervening period.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation - Deemed Confirmation - Termination - Where an employee completes the probationary period and no order of termination or extension is passed, the employee is deemed to have been confirmed in service - The termination order passed after such deemed confirmation is illegal and without jurisdiction - Held that the petitioner was deemed confirmed and the termination was set aside (Paras 1-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services after the expiry of the probationary period, without any order of extension or adverse remarks, was valid in law, and whether the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed in service.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The communication dated 31 January 2013 terminating the petitioner's services is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Senior Clerk with continuity of service but without back wages.
Law Points
- Probation
- Deemed Confirmation
- Termination Without Inquiry
- Service Regulations
- Article 226
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 152
Writ Petition No. 2467 of 2013
Anoop V. Mohta, G.S. Kulkarni
Mr. Saurabh S. Pakale i/b. Mr. A.R. Belge for Petitioner; Mr. Kunal Bhanage i/b. Mr. L. M. Acharrya for Respondent No.3
Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging termination of services of a probationer.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of termination order dated 31 January 2013 and reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's services were terminated after completion of probation period without any adverse remarks or inquiry.
Issues
Whether the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed in service upon expiry of probation period without any order of extension or termination.
Whether the termination order dated 31 January 2013 was legal and valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he completed one year probation on 10 August 2012, no termination order was passed, and he became a permanent employee under service regulations; termination without inquiry was illegal.
Respondents argued that the petitioner was still on probation and could be terminated without cause as per appointment terms.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee who completes the probationary period without any order of extension or termination is deemed to have been confirmed in service. Termination thereafter without inquiry is illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
By an appointment order dated 1 August 2011 the Respondent No.1 appointed the Petitioner on the post of a senior clerk.
Clause 8 of the appointment order provides that the appointment was for a period of one year on probation.
The Petitioner joined services on 11 August 2011 on probation for a period of one year which expired on 10 August 2012.
The Petitioner was not issued any termination order at the expiry of one year.
Thus, as per the service Regulations of the Respondents, he becomes a regular and permanent employee of the Respondents on completion of one year of probationary service.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the termination order dated 31 January 2013. The petition was heard and disposed of by the judgment dated 15 July 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
