Harishkumar vs State on 25 July, 2008
7. Learned counsel
Mr.J.B.Pardiwala, appearing for the respondent, submitted that it was
not permissible for the petitioner to re-agitate the same issues with
the same prayers after withdrawal of his earlier petition. It was
also submitted that the impugned order dated 05.09.2006 rejecting the
representation of the petitioner was not required to reveal any
reasons, even as it was clearly stated that the representation was
considered by the High Court on its administrative side in terms of
the observations made and directions issued by the Court in SCA
No.10564 of 2002. He further submitted that, in case of confirmation
in service of a probationer, the employer was required to examine
each case on its merits, that there cannot be any comparison between
two cases and that the Court ought not to sit in appeal over the
decision, particularly when a corporate decision is taken by a body
consisting of constitutional functionaries. He relied upon another
later decision dated 08.12.2004 of this Court in SCA No.10978
of 2002 (Ajay M.Shah v. State of Gujarat) wherein, in
respect of another Labour Judge, the division bench had taken the
view that when probationer had no right to hold the post, there was
no question of providing any opportunity of being heard to him and,
if the work during the period of probation was not found to be
satisfactory, he could not be ordered to be continued on long term
basis. It was also observed that there cannot be any comparison
between the adverse remarks found against one or the other Judges of
the same group out of whom some were confirmed in service and some
were relieved at the end of the period of probation.