BANSIDHAR BARIK Vs. INDIAN COUNCIL OF PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment but considering the order of the Registrar which is reproduced below, I do not find it a case for adjournment inasmuch as counsel is not a new counsel but is the counsel who was the counsel who has filed the writ petition itself. Also, the counsel himself admits that the petitioner is not contacting him for some time now.

(2.) ON 9.1.2015 the Registrar has passed the following order and listed the matter before this Court: -

(3.) PETITIONER 's services while serving on probation with the respondent no.1 were terminated pursuant to the recommendations of a Committee dated 5.12.2009. Petitioner was appointed in terms of the letter dated 20.12.2007 of the respondent no.1/employer, para 1 of which states that petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years. Therefore, it is during the period of probation that petitioner's services have been terminated effectively thereby petitioner's services were terminated holding that he should not be confirmed in service.