Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner was earlier appointed as a Faculty Associate vide order dated 11/7/2004 for a period of 3 years. On 03/9/2006, the post of Faculty Associate was converted/re-designated as Lecturer. The petitioner joined his service on 15/7/2004. The work and conduct of the petitioner was appraised and in the First Appraisal Report dated 03/5/2008, it was mentioned "performance appraisal over 4 years found quite satisfactory". In the same Office Memorandum, recommendation was made for continuation and consideration for Assistant Professor after award of Ph.D. Degree. In the 2nd appraisal report dated 09/8/2009, his tenure was extended for one more year. The petitioner was selected for appointment as Assistant Professor vide appointment letter dated 06/6/2010. The appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining. Petitioner continued to discharge his duties as Assistant Professor, satisfactorily without any blemish. By letter dated 16/5/2012, issued by the Director, IIIT-Allahabad, Faculty members were informed about the performance appraisal of Lecturers which was scheduled to be conducted on 25th and 26th June,2012. The petitioner appeared before the Appraisal Committee on 26/6/2012. A letter dated 28/9/2012, was issued by the Director, IIIT informing the petitioner that the Performance Appraisal Committee recommended "Performance very poor and unsatisfactory. He be discontinued from his services of the Institute with immediate effect". The Board of Management held its meeting on 29/6/2012, accepted the above recommendations and decided to terminate the services of the petitioner under Clause 10 (i) of the Terms and Conditions of Service of the appointment letter issued on 06/6/2010. The petitioner was communicated that if he wish to submit any explanation, he may do so by 15/10/2012. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 56139/2012, challenging the letter dated 28/9/2012, which was entertained by this Court. The respondents contended before the Court that letter dated 28/9/2012, is only a show cause notice to which a reply has to be there so that another order may be passed either in favour or against the petitioner. The Court granted time to the respondents to file a counter affidavit by order dated 19/10/2012. The petitioner submitted his reply on 22/10/2012. One of the issue raised in the reply was that the petitioner's probation which was for a period of one year having not been extended, he shall be treated to be automatically confirmed. After receiving the reply of the petitioner dated 22/10/2012, the same was placed before a sub-committee who after considering the documents in detail gave a report that the explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory, hence the decision taken by the Board of Management be not changed. The Board of Management in its meeting dated 23/10/2012, considered the report of the sub-committee, the show cause notice dated 28/9/2012 and reply of the petitioner and decided to maintain its decision terminating the services of the petitioner and to implement the order of termination. The Director IIIT-Allahabad, vide its letter dated 26/10/2012, informed the petitioner about the said decision. Subsequently, a consequential letter dated 27/10/2012, was issued to the petitioner asking him to vacate the official accommodation.

Regulation 11 relates to period of probation and confirmation. Regulations 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 which are relevant in the present case are as follows:

"11.0 PERIOD OF PROBATION AND CONFIRMATION 11.1 The minimum period of probation shall be one year extendable by a maximum period of one more year in case of unsatisfactory performance.

11.2. The confirmation at the end of one year shall be automatic, unless extended for another year by a specific order, before expiry of the first year.

"Regulating the maintenance of standards" empowers the Commission to take such measures which may facilitate maintenance of standards in a University. Providing security of services to the teaching faculties by way of providing that unless the probation is not extended on account of unsatisfactory performance, probationer shall be deemed to be confirmed after expiry of probation is a provision with an intent to bring uniformity in the rules pertaining to probation and to bring uniformity regarding confirmation of a probationer. Above provision is with an object to check the action of the Management to continue the teaching staff on probation beyond a reasonable period and is a measure for maintenance of standards and the submission of Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate that regulations are beyond Section 26(1) (g) of the Act, 1956 cannot be accepted. More so, the institute at no stage has challenged the Regulations, 2010 or its applicability. From Clause 1.2 of the Regulations, 2010 as quoted above, it is clear that regulations apply to every University including every institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the Act. 1956. Clause 1.3 of the Regulations, 2010 further provides that "Regulations shall come into force with immediate effect." The heading of the Regulations, 2010 includes "measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education". The heading of Regulations, 2010 also suggests that the regulations are made with an intent to achieve the object of maintaining standards in the University. Regulations by its statutory force are applicable in every deemed university including IIIT-Allahabad and the submission of Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate that since it has not been adopted by the institute, same is not applicable cannot be accepted.

Regulation 11 of the 2010 Regulations, prescribes that the minimum period of probation shall be one year extendable by a maximum period of one year in case of unsatisfactory performance. It further provides that the confirmation at the end of one year shall be automatic, unless extended for another year by a specific order, before expiry of the first year. It has been further made obligatory on the part of the institution to issue an order of confirmation to the incumbents within 45 days of completion of probationary period. The petitioner was appointed on 06/6/2010. The 2010, Regulations were enforced on 18/9/2010. The period of probation of the petitioner was never extended by the respondents, nor it is the case of the respondents that at any point of time the probationary period was extended. The one year period of probation thus came to an end on 06/6/2011, and even after enforcement of 2010, Regulations, the one year period came to an end before 18/10/2011. The probation period having not been extended, the confirmation of the petitioner at the end of one year is automatic.