Amarnath Menokodath Remanan v. The Chairman, National Institute of Jewellery Design and Ors.

1. No one appears for the petitioner on both the first call and the second call.

2. By this writ petition petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 7th April, 2011 terminating his services. Petitioner was on probation for two years in terms of the appointment letter dated 12.12.2008 and the period of two years was effective from 3.10.2008.

3. Petitioner essentially contends that since the period of two years has expired, and he has continued thereafter, there is automatic confirmation of services. Petitioner also states that he was not issued any show cause notice 2013:DHC:4751 of any deficiency in service during the period of probation, and therefore, the petitioner should be held to have successfully completed the probation period.

4. Respondents filed their counter-affidavit as also documents which show that petitioner’s services were not satisfactory. In this regard, note of the employer dated 26.5.2010 is relied upon along with the contents of the Minutes of Meeting dated 11.10.2010. Note dated 26.5.2010 shows that the petitioner should get more business inasmuch as there was under utilization of capacity. The employer stated that even the break-even target was not being achieved and therefore business generation was required by the petitioner. It is also noted that the petitioner should not meet any ex-student so as to maintain trade secrecy.

5. In the Minutes of Meeting which was held for reviewing continuation of services of the probationers, the following was stated with respect to the petitioner: “(1d) In respect of Mr.Amarnath M.R., Gemmologist, the members were not happy with his representations. While interacting, he requested that, he would be grateful if DSIIDC could consider to continue him on some level in the service. Members gave him the facts and figures of the authority of this sub-committee limited to only discussing within the ambit of NIJDT, where they were authorized to dwell upon being Governing Body members. On possibility of continuing with him any more, with NIJDT even, was not advisable, as his past records did not favour him at all, due to lapses in discipline, conduct and behaviour. Although, he had sufficient qualification to be a gemologist, there were no students in Gemmology for the last several months nor there were stones coming for test at the NIJDT during his tenure. His superiors were also not happy with his services as per the record held in the office. Justification: Members felt that he may not be confirmed in the services of NIJDT and he being not required any more, may be relieved. Members took note that his probation period has ended on 3rd October, 2010 after which the assessment made by his superiors of NIJDT did not favour him to be confirmed.”

6. Therefore, in my opinion, petitioner is not justified in contending that he had given satisfactory services. Whether or not services were satisfactory is to be decided by the employer and not by this Court. The petitioner is not justified in contending that his services should be taken as satisfactory because no show cause notice was served upon him during the period of probation inasmuch as it is settled law that no show cause notice is required to be served upon a probationer before terminating services. It is so held by the Supreme Court in the judgments in the cases of Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 447 and Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 623.. Therefore, I reject the argument that the petitioner was bound to be given a show cause notice before his services were terminated.

7. Argument urged by the petitioner that he automatically is confirmed after the expiry of two years is a misconceived argument because no rule of employer is relied upon to show that there is automatic confirmation and in the employer’s appointment letter also there is no provision for automatic confirmation after two years. In fact, with respect to all probationers including the petitioner, a notice dated 6.10.2008 was issued for reviewing the performance for confirmation. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner has been discriminated against and all other probationers were not examined before confirmation. Once a review committee sits to decide the adequacy of performance in the probation period, and which has been done so far as the petitioner is concerned, and there are observations that his services are less than satisfactory, petitioner cannot claim automatic confirmation of probation.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition being without any merit is, therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. rb