B MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Khazia Mohammed Muzammil v. The State of Karnataka and Anr., 2010 8 SCC 155. In that case, the petitioner was appointed as District Judge under the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983. On the ground that he was not suitable for the post, he was discharged from service. Contenting that he continued in service beyond the period of probation and the probation is deemed to have been extended, he filed the Writ Petition. The Apex Court observed as under.

(2.) Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant (Accounts and Cash). He was successful in the written test and also subsequent personal interview. Then the respondent-bank issued him appointment letter on 02.01.2009. Clauses (1) and (2) of the appointment letter reads as under.

(3.) On 01.07.2009, the bank extended the probation of the petitioner for a further period of three months i.e., up to 05.10.2009. However, in the second paragraph of the said letter, it is mentioned as under.