NEETA MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the Government could terminate the petitioner's service under Rule 11 of the Haryana Civil Medical Services (Class II) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') after the expiry of the maximum period of probation specified in the said rule and whether the impugned order dated January 8, 1998 is liable to be invalidated on the ground of arbirtariness and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are the two inter-related questions which arise for adjudication in this petition.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding this petition are that the petitioner joined the service on May 16, 1994 in pursuance of the order dated March 25/30, 1994 issued by the Government of Haryana appointing her to the Haryana Civil Medical Services (Class II) on probation for a period of two years. This order was issued on the recommendations of the Haryana Public Service Commission. In terms of para 4 of the order of appointment which enabled the Government to extend the period of probation upto 3 years, order dated May 25, 1996 was issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Health Department extending the period of her probation by one year. The extended period of probation ended on May 14, 1997. Thereafter the Government did not issue any order extending the period of probation or terminating the service of the petitioner. However, after lapse of about 8 months counted from the date of expiry of the period of probation, the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Health Department issued the impugned order dated January 8, 1998 terminating the petitioner's service in terms of Rule 11 (2) of the Rules.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds :