A JANARDHAN Vs. C M C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a graduate in Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering from the Institute of Electronics and Telecommunications Engineers, New Delhi, was appointed as Associate Development Engineer in 1980 in CMC Limited, CMC Centre, Hyderabad, a Government of India organisation, engaged in information technology service. He was later promoted as Senior Systems Engineer and meanwhile during that period he also secured Masters Degree in Advance Electronics from J.N.T.U., Hyderabad, with distinction. He received several appreciation and recognition awards for his service and had never received any adverse remarks in his service. He, however, left the organisation in 1989 and joined in Saline Water Conversion Corporation in Saudi Arabia. After he completed the assignment in Saudi Arabia for six years, the petitioner was appointed afresh as Project Manager at Hyderabad, and he joined as such on 16-5-1996. The appointment order dt. 14-5-96 along with annexures enclosed, contain the terms and conditions of his employment. The appointment was subject to the terms and conditions in Annexure-B attached to the letter of appointment and the rules and regulations of the Corporation. Para-2 of Annexure-B contains the terms of appointment. Paras 2.1 and 2.2 are relevant for our purpose, which are extracted hereunder :

(2.) The only contention that is advanced in the writ petition is that the order of termination was contrary to the appointment order for the reason that as per the terms and conditions the petitioner was entitled for one month's notice prior to termination and since the impugned order does not precede with any notice, it was liable to be set aside.

(3.) However, the Counsel for the respondent-Corporation stoutly resists the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the impugned order was not an order of termination at all. It was only a non-confirmation of the petitioner's services, which does not require any notice. His services were not confirmed since his performance was not satisfactory and since the impugned order did not cast any stigma on the petitioner, no notice was necessary.