MOHAN DAGADU NIMBALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of termination dated 9th May, 1995 by which the petitioner, who was appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Divisiofi and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (for short "CJJD and JMFC") on probation, has been terminated from the date he received a copy of the order.

(2.) Necessary facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was selected as CJJD and JMFC vide notification dated 19th November, 1990 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, General Administration Department, Mantralaya (Law and Judiciary Department), Mumbai. The first posting of the petitioner was at Wardha where he joined on 10.1.1991 as a trainee for six months under the District and Sessions Court, Wardha. After completion of the training he was posted at Karanja (Ghadge) on 30.11.1991. He continued to work there till 31.5.1994. Thereafter he was transferred to the District Court at Thane as the 3rd Jt. CJJD and JMFC. The petitioner joined there on 6.6.1994 and continued to work till 25.2.1995 and from there he was transferred to Chandrapur vide High Court notification dated 24.1.1995 and as 4th Jt. CJJD and JMFC, Chandrapur. While at Chandrapur the impugned order dated 9.5.1995 came to be issued.

(3.) There is no dispute that his initial appointment vide notification dated 19.11.1990 was on probation for a period of two years. He completed the probation period of two years on 11.1.1993. His probation, in view of the observations made by the committee nominated by the Hon Tale the Chief Justice-respondent No. 2 was extended by one year vide High Court Resolution No. A.3930(II)/ 90 dated 26th October, 1993. The extended period of probation got over on 11.1.1994 and thereafter it appears that the probation period stood extended in view of the deeming provision under Clause (iv) of sub-rule (4) of Rule (4) of the Bombay Judicial Services Recruitment Rules, 1956 (for short "the said Rules") till his termination vide order dated 9.5.1995. A copy of true translation supplied by the petitioner of the impugned notification dated 9.5.1995 read thus: