LexMOHD. SALMAN versus COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[20111 11 ·s.c.R. 237 MOHD. SALMAN v. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6601-6602 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Service Law: Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arabi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali - r. 26 - Interpretation of - Appointment A B c of appellant as Assistant teacher in a school on probation initially for a period of one year- Appointment letter to the effect that the services of the appellant would be regularized D only if his performance during probation period was found to be satisfactory, otherwise he could be terminated from service anytime without assigning reason - Appellant's working not satisfactory and probation extended time and again· - Subsequently, termination of services in terms of r. 26 - E Challenge to - Single Judge of the High Court set aside the termination order with a direction to reinstate the appellant, on the ground that on expiry of two years period of probation, there is an automatic confirmation of the service of the appellant - Division Bench s'et aside the order of the Single Judge - On· appeal, held: The service of the appellant was F not found to be satisfactory by the Authorities and the said fact was brought to the notice of the appellant continuously and repeatedly so as to give him an opportunity to improve his performance, however, his performance and service were not improved and, thus, the service was temiinated - In the G appointment letter issued to the appellant, it was specifically mentioned that his service would be regularised only when his performance during the probation period is found to be good/ 237 H 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A satisfactory - Thus, so long an order is not passed holding that the service of the appellant is good and satisfactory, it could not have been held that his service could be regularised automatically by a deeming provision. B Kedar Nath Bahl vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1974 (3) sec 21 - relied on. The State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh AIR 1968 SC 121 O .:... distinguished. c M.K. Agarwal vs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank and Ors. 1987 D E Suppl. SCC643; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Akbar Ali Khan AIR 1968 SC 1842 ..;.. referred to. Case Law Reference: 1987 Suppl. sec 643 Referred to. Para 9 AIR 1968 SC 1842 Referred to. Para 10 AIR 1968 SC 1210 distinguist.ed. Para 12 1974 (3) sec 21 Relied on. Para 16 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6601-6602 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 20.8.2007 of the High F Court of Judicatu'te at Allahabad Bench at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 339 of 1997 and (115) of 1998 New No. 329 of 2005. Purnima Bhat for the Appellant. G Shrish Kumar Misra, Samir Ali Khan. Anis Suhrawardy, S. Mehdi Imam for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered H MOHD. SALMAN v. COMMITIEE OF MANAGEMENT 239 & ORS. ORDER 1. We propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment and order as the issues involved are inter- connected. A 2. The issue that arises for consideration in these appeals B is whether the appellant is entitled to claim deemed confirmation of his service as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no. 1 institution on an interpretation of Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Ashaskiya Arabi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali. However, before we deal with the C contentions on the legal issues which arise for our consideration, it would be necessary to state certain facts for proper appreciation of the issues. 3. The appellant was appointed on 1st March, 1989 as an 0 Assistant Teacher in the primary section of Madarsa Hanifa Ahle Sunnat Bahrul Uloom, Mau. A copy of the appointment order dated 22.2.1989 is placed on record. The said order not only states that by virtue of the said order, the appellant was appointed in the said Madarsa to the post of Assistant Teacher E Tahtania(primary) but it was also mentioned therein that the said appointment is purely on probationary basis. In the said letter, the appellant was further informed that his services could regularised but only if his performance during probation period was found to be good/satisfactory. It was also indicated therein that if his performance during the aforesaid period is not satisfactory, then he could be terminated from the service of Madarsa anytime without assigning any reason. F 4. The appellant was appoin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.