AMARDEEP CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2-College terminating the services of the petitioner by order dated 1.7.2004. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 29.6.2002. The appointment was subject to the rules of UGC and University regarding Colleges. He was put on probation for a period of one year w.e.f. 11.7.2002. By order dated 28.6.2003 (Annexure P-3), the probationary period was extended by one year w.e.f. 11.7.2003. His services were ordered to be terminated on 1.7.2004 w.e.f. 25.6.2004. During the period of his employment, the Principal of the College has issued a certificate dated 26.2.2004 (Annexure P-5) stating that the petitioner had been working in the College since 11.7.2002. His work and conduct is satisfactory. Another certificate (Annexure P-6) was issued on the same date by the Head of Department of Computer Science and Applications.

(2.) Mr. Kansal has vehemently argued that the petitioner stood confirmed w.e.f. 25.6.2004. On 1.7.2004, the petitioner had acquired the status of permanent employee, and therefore, his services could not have been terminated in view of Ordinance 3.01 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 1.7.2004, the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed. Even according to the pleaded case of the petitioner, he was made an offer of appointment on 29.6.2002. By order dated 16.8.2002, (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was put on probation for one year w.e.f. 11.7.2002. The aforesaid period of probation was extended by order dated 28.6.2003 for one year w.e.f. 11.7.2003. It, therefore, becomes apparent that the petitioner would have completed the maximum period of probation on 10.7.2004. Therefore, the petitioner was still on probation when the order terminating his services was passed on 1.7.2004. Mr. Kansal has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S. Manjunath, 2000 5 SCC 250, in support of the submission that once the maximum period of probation had expired, the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed. As noticed earlier, the maximum period of probation had not expired in the case of the petitioner, and therefore, the aforesaid judgment would not be applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case.

(3.) Mr. Kansal has further argued tha the impugned order has been passed, without there being any relevant material to show that the work and conduct of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. The order is, therefore, liable to be quashed as having been passed arbitrarily, whimsically and on extraneous considerations. Even the order terminating the services of the probationer can be passed only on the basis of relevant material. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments :-