Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On 23rd June, 2010, the University selected the petitioner for the said post after holding interview of the candidates including the petitioner. On 30th June, 2010 the University Grants Commission issued a Regulation known as University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulation, 2010 which provided for a period of probation of 1 year extendable by a maximum period of 1 more year in case of unsatisfactory performance. In the said regulation, it was provided that the confirmation at the end of one year was to be automatic unless extended by specific order before the expiry of one year. It was however made incumbent on the part of the institutions to issue order of confirmation within 45 days of completion of probationary period.

ppn 11 wp-11074.15 wt 10207.15 (j).doc

20. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said tribunal has misread the statute no.198 framed by the Shivaji University which provides for the period of probation of 24 months from the date on which the teacher joins his duty. He submits that the said statute provides that the governing body shall assess the suitability of the teachers before the expiry of period of the probation. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the University Grants Commission had admittedly issued a regulation referred to aforesaid on 30th June 2010 which provided that the minimum period of probation shall be one year and extendable by a maximum period of one more year in case of unsatisfactory performance. He submits that at the end of one year, the petitioner had attained the status of a permanent employee. It was incumbent on the management to issue an order of confirmation within 45 days of completion of probationary period. He submits that period of one year of probation was not extended by the management.

(c) Though in the notice of termination it was only mentioned that after period of termination was over, services of the petitioner shall be terminated, in the order of termination it was mentioned that his performance was unsatisfactory and there were complaints against him. Such an order cannot be considered as an order of termination simplicitor on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. If there were complaints, then it was necessary to verify whether the complaints were true or not, it was necessary to give an opportunity of hearing and to hold departmental enquiry to find out whether there was any substance or truth in those complaints. Since the said order was passed without following the principles of natural justice, the same was liable to be set aside.

51. In my view, since the period of probation was for one year under the said regulation issued by the University Grants Commission, the petitioner had attained status of a permanent Assistant Professor on the date of expiry of one year from the date of his appointment and thus the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on the ground of alleged unsatisfactory performance without conducting an enquiry into those allegations/complaints against the petitioner alleging unsatisfactory performance. In my view, the direction issued by the said tribunal that the petitioner shall be reinstated on probation is ex facie perverse and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Suseela & Ors. (supra) and the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Maharashtra Federation of University & College Teachers Organizations (supra) and Beena Inamdar (supra) and thus deserves to be set aside.