PRATIBHA SAMUEL DUBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order in Original Application No. 579/2005 passed by the Division Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad dated 3-5-2007. The petitioner preferred Original Application No. 579/2005 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad challenging the Government Resolution dated 3-6-2005 issued by respondent No. 2 terminating the petitioner's services.

(2.) Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner as a probationary officer worked for a period of more than 11 years and thereafter on 15-3-1994 she was selected by Maharashtra Public Service Commission and was recommended to the respondents for being appointed as Assistant Project Officer in Class - II cadre in Tribal Development Department. Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that appointment of the petitioner was on probation for the period of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner has passed departmental examination and has successfully completed her probation period. For that purpose, learned Counsel Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on notification dated 3rd October 1996 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has passed departmental examination. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has successfully completed probation period and thus, become permanent with effect from 13-8-1996 on the post of Assistant Project Officer Class - II. For that purpose, the State of Maharashtra issued order dated 21-4-1998. In the year 1995-1996 the Maharashtra Public Service Commission published an advertisement for the post of Social Welfare Officer in Social Welfare Department which is Class - I cadre post. It is the case of the petitioner that she came to be selected for the said post and came to be appointed vide order dated 24-6-1997. In the said appointment letter some conditions are as under.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the said appointment, the petitioner requested the Secretary Tribal Development Department to relieve her from the post so as to join post of Research Officer Class-I. The said request came to be accepted by the respondent and the petitioner was relieved and she joined Class-I cadre post as District Social Welfare Officer on 22-7-1997. It is the case of the petitioner that she successfully completed her probation period of two years i.e. on 22-7-1999 and thereafter the petitioner continued in service. Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on 27-5-2002/1-7-2002 the petitioner was informed about adverse confidential remarks. In the said communication of adverse confidential remarks, the petitioner immediately filed representation for cancellation of those adverse confidential remarks vide her letter dated 1-7-2002. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents did not decide her representation till her removal from service. It is the case of the petitioner that from 22-7-1997 the petitioner was continued on the post of the District Social Welfare Officer even after two years. The petitioner submitted that in view of the continuation of service after probation period for two years, it is to be presumed that the petitioner was confirmed on the said post. Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the continuous service of the petitioner after completion of probation period, it is to be deemed that the petitioner completed probation period successfully and she stood confirmed in her service.