JAYA RAINA Vs. GUJARAT LIVELIHOOD PROMOTION COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.3.2012 terminating her services after office hours on 31.3.2012 on the ground that as per condition-3 of the contract of service (appointment), she had not satisfactorily completed the probation period.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is a Government Company and it initiated recruitment process for appointment on the post of District Livelihood Manager and Assistant Manager (District) in various districts in the State of Gujarat. As a part of recruitment process, the petitioner appeared for her selection on 23.3.2011 and got selected. She was offered appointment on the post of District Livelihood Manager which was accepted by her vide letter dated 26th March, 2011. The petitioner was then given appointment on contract basis for three years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. As per the term of contract, if her performance was found unsatisfactory on review during probation period of three months, her services were liable to be terminated. However, on successful completion of the probation period, contract for three years including the period of probation was to commence. After the petitioner joined duty on 1.4.2011, she was asked to report at the District Rural Development Agency ("DRDA" for short) at Anand on 11.4.2011 where after reporting, she successfully completed probation period of three months and thus became entitled to complete her three years service tenure under the contract. However, much after the completion of probation period, from one Mr. Prakash Solanki who joined in place of Shri R.G. Balara who was the reporting officer for the petitioner, the petitioner started receiving memos as regards her work performance. The petitioner rendered explanation and thereafter continued in employment for long time however abruptly impugned order came to be passed on the ground that her performance was not satisfactory during the period of probation. The petitioner has taken contention that the review of her performance was to be done in first three months, and since no adverse reports as regards her performance were communicated for long time after completion of first three months of probation period, under the terms of contract, the petitioner was entitled to serve full term of contract period and the impugned order is since contrary to the terms of contract, same is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are required to be directed to continue the petitioner in service as per the terms of appointment order with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The petition is opposed by affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 stating that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual and since her performance was not found satisfactory, she did not deserve continuation in employment till the end of the contract period. Other parts of the affidavits in reply shall be referred later on, when required.