Bombay High Court
Ajay Sharadrao Taywade vs Registrar, P.K.V. Akola & Others on 9 June, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A.Naik, Swapna Joshi
WP 176/00 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 176/2000
Ajay son of Sharadrao Taywade,
Aged about 29 years, Occupation - Service,
resident of 16/A, Zilla Parishad Colony,
Kaulkhed Marg, Khadki, District - Akola. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Registrar,
Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Krish Vidyapeeth,
Akola. Akola.
2. Superintendent,
Agricultural School, Hiwara (Gondia),
District - Gondia.
3. Shri D.H. Dapke,
Junior Research Assistant,
Agricultural School, Hiwara (Gondia),
District - Gondia. RESPONDENTS
Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Ujjwala A. Patil, counsel for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 9 TH JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.01.2000 terminating the services of the petitioner as a probationer on the ground that his performance was not satisfactory.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 :::WP 176/00 2 Judgment
2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent no.1- University on the post of Junior Research Assistant by the order dated 30.12.1996. The petitioner was posted at the Agricultural School, Hiwara. At Hiwara, the petitioner worked under Shri D.N. There, who was the superintendent of the said school. Since the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years, the performance of the petitioner was examined. It is the case of the petitioner that for a period of about 1 Year and 4 Months, the performance of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory and there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner during this period. It is averred in the petition that from 30.05.1998, after Shri Dapke joined as in-charge superintendent, the petitioner was regularly served with memos. The probation period of the petitioner was extended with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to improve his performance. The period of probation was extended by a period of one year, till 12.01.2001. The petitioner made representation for expunging the adverse remarks, however, by the impugned order dated 01.01.2000, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. It was observed by the respondent in the order dated 01.01.2000 that the remarks recorded in the confidential reports of the petitioner for the year 1998-99 were proper and, hence, they could not be expunged. By an order dated 15.01.2000, the services of the petitioner were terminated as his performance was not found to be satisfactory. The aforesaid orders are impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 :::WP 176/00 3 Judgment
3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory and the petitioner ought to have been confirmed in service, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated on the ground that his performance was not satisfactory. It is submitted that Shri Dapke, the respondent no.3, who was in-charge superintendent had a grudge against the petitioner and, hence, he spoiled the confidential reports of the petitioner. It is submitted that the performance of the petitioner for the first year was satisfactory but, the respondents did not communicate the confidential reports to the petitioner for the first year. It is submitted that Shri Dapke, the in-charge superintendent could not have assessed the performance of the petitioner as though he was holding the charge of the superintendent, he was a Junior Research Assistant. It is submitted that one Junior Research Assistant could have examined the performance of another Junior Research Assistant. It is submitted that the petitioner's performance for the extended period of probation, i.e. for the entire one year ought to have been assessed, however, the services of the petitioner were terminated only on the basis of the assessment of the performance for eight months. The learned counsel sought for the reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Junior Research Assistant with consequential benefits.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 :::WP 176/00 4 Judgment
4. Mrs. Ujjwala Patil, the learned counsel for the respondents, supported the orders passed by the respondent no.1-University and submitted that the petitioner's services were brought to an end only because his performance was not satisfactory. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner that Shri Dapke, the respondent no.3, had a grudge against him is incorrect as Shri P.E. Kale, who was the earlier superintendent, had also recorded adverse remarks against the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim that the performance of the petitioner was satisfactory when adverse entries were recorded against the petitioner not only by the respondent no.3-Shri Dapke but, by Shri P.E. Kale also. It is submitted that the performance of the petitioner during the first two years was not satisfactory and with a view to grant an opportunity to the petitioner, the probation period was extended. It is stated that the petitioner did not improve his performance and, hence, his services were terminated at the end of the extended period of probation.
It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner that Shri Dapke, the respondent no.3, could not have assessed the performance of the petitioner is incorrect as at the relevant time, Shri Dapke was holding the charge of the superintendent in the school at Hiwara and only he could have assessed the performance of the petitioner. It is submitted that only because he was holding the charge of the superintendent, it cannot be said that he could not have judged the performance of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's services are not terminated by assessing his ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 ::: WP 176/00 5 Judgment performance of eight months as the performance of the petitioner has been continuously assessed after his appointment.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents that are annexed to the petition and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Research Assistant on probation. The petitioner's performance during the probation period was not satisfactory. The respondents, therefore, extended the period of probation by one year. The petitioner did not challenge the order of extension of probation and accepted the same. During the extended period of probation and some time earlier, the petitioner received memos from his superiors. The petitioner's performance was not found to be satisfactory and he was, from time to time, conveyed about the same. This is a simple case where the services of an employee are terminated at the end of the probation period due to unsatisfactory performance. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioner that Shri Dapke had a grudge against the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner has not substantiated the said allegation by producing any material on record.
Merely any averment in the petition that Shri Dapke, the respondent no.3, had a grudge against the petitioner and, therefore, he had issued memos to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Also, we find that not only Shri ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 ::: WP 176/00 6 Judgment Dapke made adverse entries against the petitioner but, Shri P.E. Kale, under whom the petitioner was working for a considerable period had also made adverse entries against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 cannot have judged the performance of the petitioner as he was also a Junior Research Assistant, cannot be accepted. Though the respondent no.3 was a Junior Research Assistant, he was given the charge of the post of Superintendent in the school at Hiwara, where the petitioner was working. A superintendent is required to judge the performance of the Junior Research Assistant. A person holding the charge of the superintendent cannot be said to be incompetent to assess the performance of his subordinates. It is not in dispute that Shri Dapke was holding the charge of the post of superintendent at the relevant time when he recorded the adverse entries against the petitioner. We do not find that the adverse remarks have been recorded against the petitioner with spite or ill-will as canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. The services of the petitioner appear to have been terminated as the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory.
Though the petitioner made a representation for expunging the adverse entries, the representation was rejected on the ground that the adverse entries were correctly recorded. We also do not find that the performance of the petitioner is judged only for a period of eight months. The performance of the petitioner was continuously assessed by the respondents and since it was not satisfactory, his services were terminated ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 ::: WP 176/00 7 Judgment at the end of the probation period. The judgment reported in (1996) 8 SCC 762 (State Bank of India & Others Versus Kashinath Kher & Others) and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner for substantiating his submission that a person working on a particular post cannot assess the performance of another person working on the same post, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the character rolls of the officers were prepared by the officers of the same rank in the same cadre. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the character rolls were not prepared by the officers, who were holding the charge of a superior post as was held by the respondent no.3 in the instant case. In the instant case, the performance of the petitioner was assessed not by an officer working on the same rank and post but, by an officer who was the in-charge of a superior post and was holding the post of a superintendent. If a superintendent in the school at Hiwara was required to judge the performance of a Junior Research Assistant at Hiwara and if in the absence of a regular superintendent, a Junior Research Assistant was given the charge of the post of superintendent, it cannot be said that the in-charge superintendent could not have assessed the performance of the Junior Research Assistant. If the in-charge superintendent had not judged the performance, as stated on behalf of the petitioner, the performance of the petitioner could not have been judged at all as only the superintendent was the head at the school at Hiwara and in the absence ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 ::: WP 176/00 8 Judgment of the head, there could not have been any assessment of the performance of the Junior Research Assistant.
6. Since the orders passed by the respondents are just and proper, they do not call for any interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:47:37 :::