PREMAJAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the petitioner who was a Lecturer in the Sree Narayana College, Cannanore, were terminated with effect from 31-12-1963 on three months' notice by an order dated 20-9-1963. This order is Ext. P 3 and was passed by the third respondent to this writ application, the Convener, Managing Committee, Sree Narayana College, Cannanore; and it is impugned, in this writ application.

(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the Sree Narayana College in 1960 and it is undisputed that by order, Ext. P 2, she has been serving as a probationer from 1-6-1961 for one year. This period of probation must have expired on 1-6-1962. No order confirming the petitioner as a permanent Lecturer in the College has been passed and, of course, no order terminating her services was passed either. In these circumstances, the position of the petitioner must be that of a probationer. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the cases of similar employees in more than one case. It is enough to refer to the decision in Accountant General P. P. v. B. P. Bhatnagar (Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1962) wherein Their Lordships said:

(3.) The order of appointment in this case (the relevant one being Ext. P 2) has not stated that at the end of the period mentioned therein, the petitioner will stand confirmed. So the contention of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit in support of the Original Petition that the petitioner had become a permanent employee cannot stand. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had been permitted to receive increments and also been allowed to contribute to the Provident Fund. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the University of Kerala, by its Registrar, has pointed out in Para.7 that the period of probation would count for increments and that teachers appointed on probation are also eligible to contribute to the Provident Fund. Nothing, therefore, turns on these facts and I proceed to deal with this case on the basis that the petitioner was a probationer at the time of the passing of the order Ext. P 3.