Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.3.2012 terminating her services after office hours on 31.3.2012 C/SCA/4724/2012 JUDGMENT on the ground that as per condition-3 of the contract of service (appointment), she had not satisfactorily completed the probation period.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is a Government Company and it initiated recruitment process for appointment on the post of District Livelihood Manager and Assistant Manager (District) in various districts in the State of Gujarat. As a part of recruitment process, the petitioner appeared for her selection on 23.3.2011 and got selected. She was offered appointment on the post of District Livelihood Manager which was accepted by her vide letter dated 26 th March, 2011. The petitioner was then given appointment on contract basis for three years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order. As per the term of contract, if her performance was found unsatisfactory on review during probation period of three months, her services were liable to be terminated. However, on successful completion of the probation period, contract for three years including the period of probation was to commence. After the petitioner joined duty on 1.4.2011, she was asked to report at the District Rural Development Agency ("DRDA" for short) at Anand on 11.4.2011 where after reporting, she successfully completed probation period of three months and thus became entitled to complete her three years service tenure under the contract. However, much after the completion of probation period, from one Mr. Prakash Solanki who joined in place of Shri R.G. Balara who was the reporting officer for the petitioner, the petitioner started receiving memos as regards her work performance. The petitioner rendered explanation and thereafter continued in employment for long time however abruptly impugned order came to be passed on the ground that her performance was not satisfactory during the period of probation. The petitioner has taken contention that the review of her performance was to be done in first three months, and since no adverse reports as regards her performance were communicated C/SCA/4724/2012 JUDGMENT for long time after completion of first three months of probation period, under the terms of contract, the petitioner was entitled to serve full term of contract period and the impugned order is since contrary to the terms of contract, same is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are required to be directed to continue the petitioner in service as per the terms of appointment order with all consequential benefits.

12. It appears that there is no specific term in the contract giving automatic right to the petitioner to complete full term of employment on merely completion of the probation period and therefore, the contract envisages that on successful completion of the probation period, the petitioner was to get three years term of employment. From the phraseology "on successful completion of the probation period" used in second part of Clause 3 of the contract, it appears that until the performance of the petitioner was found satisfactory during probation period and thereafter also, the respondents could either allow the petitioner to improve the performance or put an end to her service as per the terms of the contract. This is what it appears to have been done by the respondents. First letter addressed to the petitioner dated 20.7.2011 on completion of her probation period records that during three months of work of the petitioner, there was no C/SCA/4724/2012 JUDGMENT progress in her performance and she was informed that she was not upto the mark for giving benefits to the poor persons under the SGSY scheme. She was then issued show cause notice in the month of September 2011 bringing to her notice the required result to be achieved in the scheme and to explain as to why the recommendation for taking action as regards her poor performance should not be made. There are other letters issued to the petitioner in the month of October and December 2011 found placed with the affidavit-in-reply. In para 6 and 7 of the reply, it is stated as under:-

13. In light of the above principles laid down by various judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the terms of contract for employment are considered, it is not possible to read automatic confirmation of the petitioner to complete the full term of employment. Simply because the petitioner was continued after a period of probation of three months, it could not be said that the petitioner had successfully completed probation period and became entitled to serve for three years under the contract. As stated above, time and again the petitioner was informed by different letters to improve her performance. Such letters would to go show that her performance was being watched and assessed right from beginning. Therefore, there was no conclusion by the respondents that the petitioner had successfully completed her probation period. If the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory after she was appointed and no positive order of confirmation was passed to permit her to complete the entire term of employment, it was always open to the respondents to terminate the service of the petitioner. When the contract does not provide for automatic confirmation of the petitioner on expiry of the probation period and if the respondents have been asking the petitioner to improve her performance, it was a clear indication that the petitioner had not successfully completed probation period and in absence of positive act of the respondents of confirming the petitioner, the probation of the petitioner continued.

14. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar however submitted that the review of the performance of the petitioner could have been made by the concerned authorities only during the probation period and if not made, the petitioner could be said to have completed the probation period satisfactorily. Such contention cannot be accepted. What appeared to be intended by Clause 3 was to review C/SCA/4724/2012 JUDGMENT and assess the performance of the petitioner for the probation period. The above clause could not be read to say that the review of performance was to be done only during probation period. If such assessment and review was possible to be made on the basis of the datas/ materials available with the concerned authorities for the period of three months, the concerned authorities could have acted upon such assessment and could have further assessed and examined the performance of the petitioner to confirm whether the petitioner had successfully completed probation. In absence of any deeming clause or term in the contract for automatic confirmation of the petitioner on expiry of probation and in absence of positive act of the respondents to confirm the petitioner to serve for full term of employment, the respondents could have continued the petitioner on probation so long as her performance was not found satisfactory and successful.