RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT versus VED PRIYA & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 18-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
971
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
v.
VED PRIYA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8933-8934 of 2017)
MARCH 18, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Judicial Service – Probation period – Order of non-
confirmation in – Respondent no.1 – a former Judicial Officer was
appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial
Magistrate and he was placed on probation for a period of two
years – There were certain allegations of 7 and corruption in
discharge of judicial functions during the probation period against
respondent no.1 – On basis of which the Registrar of Vigilance
was called and he submitted a report – The Administration
Committee of the High Court did not confirm the service of
respondent no.1 – The Full Court of the High Court confirmed the
recommendations – Consequently, on basis of the recommendation
of the High Court the State government dispensed with the services
of respondent no.1 – Writ Petition by respondent no.1 – The
Division Bench of the High Court quashed the termination order
and directed reinstatement of respondent no. 1 – Before the Supreme
Court, the respondent no. 1 contended that it was a case of an
indictment following allegations of corruption against him – On
appeal, held: The entire object of probation is to provide the
employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer’s performance
and test his suitability for a particular post – The true test of
suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied
after the candidate joins and starts working – In the instant case,
the order of termination of services of respondent no. 1 is based
upon overall assessment of performance of respondent no. 1 during
the period of probation, which was not found satisfactory – Such
an inference which can be valid foundation to dispense with
services of a probationer does not warrant holding of an enquiry
in terms of Art. 311 of the Constitution – It is thus not true on part
of respondent no. 1 to allege that it was a case of an indictment
following allegations of corruption against him – There is nothing
in the present case to infer that the motivation behind the removal
was any allegation – Instead, it was a routine confirmation exercise
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 971
971
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
– The foundation for removal was not the allegations but it was a
holistic assessment of respondent’s service record – Therefore, the
judgment of the High Court set aside.
Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial review by the High
Court over the decision taken by its Full Court on administrative
side – Held: Although it would be a futile task to exhaustively
delineate the scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters but a High
Court u/Art. 226 has limited scope and it ought to interfere
cautiously – The amplitude of such jurisdiction cannot be enlarged
to sit as an ‘appellate authority’, and hence care must be taken to
not hold another possible interpretation on the same set of material
or substitute the Court’s opinion for that of the disciplinary
authority – This is especially true given the responsibility and
powers bestowed upon the High Court u/Art.235 of the
Constitution – The collective wisdom of the Full Court
deserves due respect, weightage and consideration in the process
of judicial review.
Service Law – Difference between the termination of a
probationer and of a confirmed employee – Held: There is a subtle,
yet fundamental, difference between termination of a probationer
and that of a confirmed employee – Although it is undisputed that
the State cannot act arbitrarily in either case, yet there has to be
a difference in judicial approach between the two – Whereas in
the case of a confirmed employee the scope of judicial interference
would be more expansive given the protection u/Art. 311 of the
Constitution or the Service Rules but such may not be true in the
case of probationers who are denuded of such protection(s) while
working on trial basis – Constitution of India – Art. 311.
Service Law – Right to continue in the employment of
probationers – Held: Probationers have no indefeasible right to
continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved
by the competent authority if found unsuitable – It is only in a very
limited category of cases that such probationers can seek
protection under the principles of natural justice, say when they
are ‘removed’ in a manner which prejudices their future prospects
in alternate fields or ca

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.