RANENDRA CHANDRA BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court. The appellant was selected for the post of Programme Assistant on May 3, 1949 and was appointed on probation for one year, and the letter of appointment said that during the said period his services might be terminated without any notice and without any cause being assigned. He was asked to accept the offer on this condition. The appellant accepted the offer and joined service on June 4, 1949. His period of probation expired on June 3, 1950, but it was extended from time to time on July 4, 1952, the appellant was informed that his probation period could not be extended and was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated The appellant showed cause. He was finally informed that the explanation given by him was not satisfactory and that his services were to be terminated after August 31, 1952

(2.) The appellant then filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court and his main contention was that he was entitled to the protection of Art 311 (2) of the Constitution and as this was not afforded to him the order terminating his services was illegal. Besides it was urged on his behalf that he was governed by Rr. 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and therefore he was entitled to the protection of those rules. As however his services had been terminated without compliance with those rules he was in any case entitled to reinstatement.

(3.) The High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. It further held that Rr. 49 and 55-B of the Rules did not apply to the appellant and he was governed by the contract of his service which provided that his services might by terminated without any notice and without any cause being assigned during the period of probation. The High Court further held that Rr. 49 and 55-B would not in any case apply to the appellant in the face of the contract under which he was appointed in view of R. 3 (a) of the Rules. The petition was consequently dismissed, but the High Court granted a certificate to the appellant that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court; and that is how the matter has come up before us.