V SANTHI SIRI Vs. PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is a Probationer or not when the impugned orders questioned in this writ petition were passed by the respondent University. The question of deemed confirmation in service jurisprudence has often arisen for consideration. The case on hand is one among those cases.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) According to the petitioner, the respondent University should decide the issue as to extend or not to extend the probation, by assessing her performance, at least 40 days before the expiry of one year probation period and the decision if any taken to extend the probation, shall be informed, at least 30 days prior to the one year period of probation, as per Clause 7 of Chapter XX of the Ordinances of the University. Since the one year period of probation came to end on 24.06.2010, the impugned order dated 24.08.2010 extending the period of probation is without jurisdiction and is in violation of the aforesaid Ordinances. Likewise, if the extension of probation is bad, she could not be termed as probationer and she should be deemed to be a confirmed employee. In this regard, reliance is also placed on Clause 11 of the UGC Regulations 2010. Since the petitioner could not be termed as a probationer as the one year probation period was not validly extended as per Clause 7 of Chapter XX of the Ordinances of the University, the impugned show cause notice seeking to terminate the petitioner from service treating her as probationer, is bad and illegal.