KAILASH CHANDRA SETHIA Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the service of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as "the Board", by order document No. 1 dated September 17. 1969. It was a probationary appointment. He joined service on September 27, 1969 and was posted as Assistant Engineer after some training. He has stated that he received a letter dated July 28, 1971 from the Chief Engineer in regard to certain complaints against him, and that he sent a reply stating that the complaints were false and frivolous. The period of his two years' probation expired on September 26, 1971. The Chief Engineer, according to the petitioner, asked him certain questions, which were replied by him, and he was placed under suspension by an order dated October 4, 1971 of the Chief Engineer. He made a representation to the Chairman of the Board on May 6, 1972, praying for reinstatement. The Board thereafter passed an order (document No. 4) dated May 25, 1972 extending the period of his probation by one year, with effect from September 27, 1971, under Regulation 29 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Service of Engineers (recruitment, promotion and seniority, etc. ). Regulations, 1969, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations". This was followed by order dated June 1, 1972 by which he was reinstated in service. He, therefore, took over charge of the office of Assistant Engineer (construction) at Bharatpur, on June 5, 1972. Ultimately order (document No. 5) dated September 25, 1972 was passed by the Board terminating his services on the ground that his work had been found "unsatisfactory during the probationary period". The petitioner has challenged that order on a number of grounds, and I shall refer to those arguments which have been urged by his learned Counsel for my consideration.

(2.) THE Board has filed a reply traversing the petitioner's claim. The petitioner has filed affidavits dated January 22, 1973 and February 22, 1973, and I shall refer to the later of these affidavits as the petitioner's learned Counsel has placed reliance on it in certain respects.

(3.) AS has been stated, the petitioner was appointed in the service of the Board by order (document No. 1) dated September 17, 1969. It has been stated in paragraph 2 of that order that the appointment would be subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Paragraphs 3 and 6 of the order are relevant for purposes of the controversy in this case and read as follows,-3. They will be on probation for a period of two years and during this period they will have to undergo such training and pass such departmental examination as may be prescribed. The probationers, whose work is found to be unsatisfactory or who fail in the departmental examinations will be liable to be removed from service during oral the end of the probationary period. 5. . . . 6. . . . All other conditions of service will be the same as are applicable from time to time to the other employees of the Board of similar category. The Regulations were not in force at the time of the petitioner's appointment, for it has been stated by Mr. H. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Board, that they were brought into force from October 1, 1970. Regulation l (iii) provides that the Regulations shall apply to every "member of the service". The expression "member of the service" has been defined in Regulation 3 (f) to mean a person appointed to a post in the service "under the provisions of these Regulations or of Rules in force previous to the introduction of these Regulations. " As the petitioners' appointment had not been made under the provisions of the Regulations, and as it has not been shown by the respondents that he was appointed under any Rules in force previous to the introduction of the Regulations, he could not be said to be a member of the service" within the meaning of Regulation 3 (f ). The Regulations were not, therefore, applicable to his case by virtue of Regulation l (iii ).