Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerns termination of three employees—a telephone operator and a security inspector—by Shri Tuljabhavani Temple Trust, which runs an engineering college. The employees were appointed on probation in July 1991 under orders stipulating a one-year probation, though the governing Rules of 1984 prescribed two years. Their services were first terminated in 1993, but the University and College Tribunal set aside that termination and ordered reinstatement. In January 1997, the Trust again terminated their services, citing unsatisfactory performance during probation and giving one month's notice. The employees appealed to the University and College Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals in a common judgment on 30 June 1997. The employees then filed writ petitions before the High Court, challenging the termination and the tribunal's order. They initially also sought to declare Rule 7 of the Rules of 1984 ultra vires but later abandoned that claim. The core legal issues were whether the termination was valid under Rule 7, whether the employees could claim deemed confirmation after completing the probation period, and whether the tribunal's decision was correct. The employees argued that after serving over five and a half years, they were deemed confirmed and could not be terminated without a regular disciplinary proceeding, relying on Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S. Manjunath. The Trust countered that confirmation required an explicit order and that termination under Rule 7(6) for unsatisfactory work during probation was lawful without inquiry, citing Sanjeev L. Tatuskar, Solapur University, and Shaikh Farheen Sultana. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petitions. It held that under the Rules of 1984, probationary employees have no right to deemed confirmation; confirmation must be by a specific order of the competent authority. The court further held that termination under Rule 7(6) for unsatisfactory performance during probation, after giving one month's notice, is legal and does not require a full departmental inquiry. The impugned termination orders and the tribunal's judgment were upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination during Probation - Rule 7(6) of Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standards Code (Terms and Conditions of Services of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984 - The court held that termination of a probationer's services under Rule 7(6) for unsatisfactory work or behaviour during probation does not require a regular departmental inquiry, and a one-month notice is sufficient (Paras 5-7). B) Service Law - Deemed Confirmation - Rule 7 of Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standards Code (Terms and Conditions of Services of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984 - The court held that expiry of the probation period does not result in automatic or deemed confirmation; confirmation requires a specific order by the competent authority under Rule 7(5)(a) (Paras 5-6). C) Service Law - Probation Period - Rule 7(5)(b) of Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standards Code (Terms and Conditions of Services of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984 - The court found that even after expiry of the maximum extension of probation, absence of a confirmation order keeps the employee on probation, subject to termination under Rule 7(6) (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of services of the petitioners, who were appointed on probation, was valid under Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standards Code (Terms and Conditions of Services of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984? Whether the petitioners were deemed to have been confirmed in their posts upon expiry of the probation period? Whether the University and College Tribunal's order upholding the termination was correct?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the termination orders dated 27.01.1997 and the common judgment dated 30.06.1997 of the University and College Tribunal.
Law Points
- Probationer has no right to deemed confirmation
- termination of probationer for unsatisfactory work without inquiry valid under Rule 7(6) of the Rules of 1984
- confirmation requires explicit order
- notices given comply with rule
