A
K.V. KRISHNAMANI
v.
LAUT ACADEMY
MAY 10, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law:
Probatione1-Tenninatio11 of sen•ices-Drive1-Appoi11tme11t 011 ad hoc
basis-Later put on probation-During probation services temiinated as not
C found satisfactory---Tennination order challenged for failure of Department
to conduct inquiiy-Held, the very object of probation is to test the suitability
and if the appointing authority finds that the candidate is not suitable it
certainly has power to tenninate services of the employee-Reasons men-
tioned constitute motive and not foundation for tennination of ser-
D vices-Order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition does not suffer
from any error of law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9058 of
1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.91 of the Delhi High Court
F
G
in C.W.P. No. 3695 of 1990.
S. Menon for Pravir Choudhary for the Appellant.
K.V. Mohan for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heavd learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal arises out of the order of the Delhi High Court in Writ
petition No. 3695 of 1990 made on April 30, 1991. The appellant was
appointed initially on ad hoc basis on March 3, 1987 and thereafter with a
view to regularise his services, he was put on probation. During probation,
his services having been found to be not satisfactory, were terminated by
H proceedings dated December 1, 1989. The appellant came to challenge the
844
•
'
K.V.KRISHNAMAN!v. LALITKALAACADEMY
845
same by filing writ petition in November 1990 which was dismissed by the A
High Court. Thus this appeal by special leave.
It is contended by the appellant that since the avermments made .in
the counter would constitute foundation for dismissal for misconduct, an
enquiry in. this behalf was required to be made. On the other hand, it is
contended by the respondent that during the probation the appellant did
B
not acquire any right to the post. If on being fou~d suitable he was
regularised, only then he would have acquired the right to continue in the
post. During probation, it was found that his services were not satisfactory
and reasons were given in support thereof. Thus they do not constitute
foundation but motive to terminate the services. We find force in the C
contention of the respondent. They have explained that the driving of the
staff car was not satisfactory and that, therefore, they have terminated the
services.of-the appellant during probation. The very object of the probation
is to test the suitability and if the appointing authority finds that the
candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to terminate the services
of the employee. Under these circumstances, it cannot but be held that the D
reasons mentione.d constitute motive and not foundation for termination of
service. Therefore, we. hold that the. High Court has not committed any
error of law.
·
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
E
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex