VINAY KUMAR RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner came to be appointed as Trained graduate Teacher (S.St). An order to this effect was issued on 19-09-1997.this has been placed on the record as annexure E. This order makes mention of the fact that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of two years. This period of probation could be extended and upon successful completion of probation, the petitioner was to be confirmed. This was however, subject to the availability of a permanent vacancy. The letter of appointment further provided that during the period of probation, the services of the petitioner could be brought to an end by giving one month s notice. These conditions are incorporated in paras 4 and 5 of the order of appointment. The further fact is that the period of probation of the petitioner was to expire on 19-09-1999. This was extended up to 19-09-2000. The requisite averments are contained in paragraph 7 of the petition. What has led the petitioner to approach this court is that the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end by an order which as per the petitioner is penal in nature. The fact that in the order in question mention is made of the fact that the service relationship is being snapped on account of "adverse work and conduct" of the petitioner is being projected by the petitioner. It is accordingly submitted that the order being panel in nature as it casts stigma on the petitioner, it is liable to be quashed.

(2.) The respondents have filed objections. The file indicating the service profile of the petitioner has also been produced. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were brought to an end during the period of probation and this could be validely done. It is urged that merely because the words "on the basis of this adverse work and conduct" has been mentioned is of no consequence. It is submitted that his probation period was extended and despite repeated advice he did not show any improvement.

(3.) It is thus submitted that the order under challenge does not cast any stigma on him.