Lalit Kumar v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 26.06.2002 reverting the petitioner to substantive cadre of workman. The petitioner at the time of reversion was working as a probationer in the post of an officer.

2. Since the language of the letter dated 26.06.2002 would be material for disposing of this writ petition, this letter is reproduced as under:- 2013:DHC:1410 “BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. ( A GOVT.

LALIT KUMAR STAFF NO. 5261 OFFICER (ON PROBATION) THROUGH: DGM (HR SERVICES) NORTH Dear Sir, YOURSELF: REVERSION TO SUBSTANTIVE CADRE We refer to our letter Ref. CHRS.RC.IS99 dated 7th September, 1999 advising you of your promotion to the Management Cadre as Officer (on probation in Job Group „A‟) Your performance during the probationary period has not been found satisfactory despite being given several opportunities to improve upon the same and therefore, your probationary period was extended on 5 occasions as detailed below:

1. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA 5261. CON dated 26.9.2000

2. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA 5261. CON dated 17.01.2001

3. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA DOSS. CON dated 08.08.2001

4. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA DOSS. CON dated 21.09.2001

5. Note Ref. NR. HRS. BA DOSS. CON dated 12.12.2001 We regret to note that, inspite of giving you several opportunities to improve upon your performance, the same has not come up to the desired level and therefore, it has been decided to revert you to your substantive cadre with immediate effect as per the provisions of the above referred promotion letter dated 7th September, 1999 issued to you. Please, therefore, report to DGM (HRS) North, for further instructions. Consequent upon you reversion, you will continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of service of the cadre to which you belonged immediately prior to your probationary appointment i.e. Assistant. Please sign the duplicate copy of this letter in token of acknowledgement and return the same to DGM(HRS)North.

AR SINGRUT CHIEF MANAGER (CORP HRS)”

3. It is not disputed that the petitioner‟s probation continued and the petitioner was given, though, need not have been given, the various extensions of probation period.

4. In spite of repeated extensions, the petitioner‟s suitability in the post in which he was on probation was found to be less than what was required.

5. The order of reversion dated 26.06.2002 is not stigmatic.

6. The law with respect to termination of services or reversion of services from a post where the employee is working on probation is clear. The Court does not sit in the arm chair of the person who has to see the suitability of the probationer. Unless and until there is a case of violation of the rules by the organization or ex facie gross malafides, the Courts are not to interfere with the orders in not confirming a probationer to the post.

7. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner should not have been put to a test to decide the suitability of the petitioner to the post in which he was in probation because no other employee was put to such test. This argument, I find really turns the issue of equity on its head, because the fact of the matter is that the respondent/employer was not bound to put the petitioner to a test, and it could have simply reverted the petitioner on account of his non-suitability but the respondent was more than liberal in giving a chance to the petitioner for showing his suitability by passing a test, but, the petitioner failed even in the tests. Therefore, I find it as a strange argument that if the respondent-organization has been liberal, it has done a wrong in taking a liberal approach. The argument is wholly without merit and is therefore, rejected.

8. In my opinion, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches. The impugned order is dated 26.06.2002 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2010. The first representation of the petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2003. Merely because repeated representations are made cannot mean that the petitioner will be entitled to keep on delaying in approaching the Court. The petition is, therefore, barred by delay and laches.