JEET SINGH Vs. HOUSING BOARD HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated February 23, 1987 passed by the Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Haryana terminating the services of the petitioner on account of unsatisfactory service.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed a Junior Engineer in the Housing Board in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1100 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment dated 22.11.1983. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years which period, according to Clause 2 of the letter of appointment, could be extended. It was specifically mentioned therein that after completion of the probation period satisfactorily, the petitioner would be absorbed as a temporary employee. It is not in dispute that by order dated October 20, 1986 the period of probation was extended upto 30.11.1986. He continued working even after 30.11.1986 and thereafter his work was reviewed and it was found that his overall performance upto 30.11.1986 had not been satisfactory. Accordingly, his services were terminated with immediate effect. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and it is their common case that the petitioner was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years which period was extended up to 30.11.1986. It is also not in dispute that no maximum period of probation had been fixed in the letter of appointment nor was there any Rule governing the employment of the petitioner which prescribed the maximum period of probation. Thus, on the expiry of two years, the petitioner continued to remain on probation which period was then extended presumably because the work of the petitioner had not been up to the mark and the employer had yet to make up his mind whether to retain him or not. The petitioner could be confirmed only by a specific order to be passed by the competent authority in this regard and in th e absence of any such order, he will be deemed to be continuing on probation. It is true that the period of probation was extended only up to 30.11.1986 and that the petitioner continued working even thereafter but that does not mean that he will be deemed to have been confirmed in service w.e.f. 1.12.1986 because there is no maximum period of probation prescribed. In such a case, the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing on probation even after 30.11.1986 because the employer had not passed a specific order confirming him in service. In February, 1987 his work was reviewed and it was found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, his services were terminated. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner because he was still on probation.