Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The Review Committee did not consist of experts from her field. One of the members, Dr.Lilavati Krishnan was ill disposed towards the appellant. There were no parameters or guidelines laid down for review which were necessarily required to be objective in nature. The Review Committee allegedly viewed her performance to be unsatisfactory which necessarily becomes subjective in nature in absence of any specified guidelines for the same. The Committee at best should have formed an opinion about her performance and left the decision for the Board of Governors instead of recommending termination citing unsatisfactory performance. Apparently, the Board of Governors did not have the freedom to decide on whether to confirm the probation or to even extend the probation as the field for its decision making was restricted by the recommendation of the Review Committee.

4. It was lastly submitted that the termination was in haste. If the probation was for two years till June, 2015, recommendation for termination for reason of unsatisfactory performance on 14.09.2014 without an opportunity for improvement till the period of the probation came to an end was unjustified.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Appellant was appointed on probation for a period of two years. The letter of appointment itself mentions that the performance would be reviewed. If the performance was not found to be at par termination would have to follow. Continuance on probation for the period of two years cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a probationer as it based on the overall assessment of performance. The Appellant was directed to appear for review alongwith her presentation. The minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee itself reveals that she submitted a self appraisal report and was also invited to interact with the members of the Review Committee alongwith a presentation of her contributions during the period of employment at Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur, the Personal File of the Faculty Member, Teaching Feedback from students and Faculty Academic Profile were all assessed by the Review Committee. The performance was then objectively considered unsatisfactory and termination was recommended. It is denied that the Board of Governors was restricted or influenced in any manner by the recommendation of the Review Committee which was but only the expression of an opinion and did not bind the Board of Governors who took an independent decision by themselves. Twenty eight persons including the Appellant were assessed by different Review Committees some of whom were terminated, or confirmed and in some cases probation extended.

8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.

9. The services of a probationer can undoubtedly be terminated for unsatisfactory performance. A probationer cannot claim a right to continue for the entire duration of probation. It can be terminated earlier also. Judicial review will only examine if the decision was based on relevant criteria and materials or was it vitiated by malafides, bias or taking into consideration irrelevant materials.