Ajay Sharadrao Taywade vs Registrar, P.K.V. Akola & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 2689 Bom

    WP 176/00                                          1                          Judgment


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                      
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                              
                          WRIT PETITION No. 176/2000

    Ajay son of Sharadrao Taywade,
    Aged about 29 years, Occupation - Service,




                                                             
    resident of 16/A, Zilla Parishad Colony,
    Kaulkhed Marg, Khadki, District - Akola.                                  PETITIONER

                                       .....VERSUS.....




                                               
    1.    Registrar,
          Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Krish Vidyapeeth,
          Akola. Akola.       
    2.    Superintendent,
          Agricultural School, Hiwara (Gondia),
                             
          District - Gondia.

    3.    Shri D.H. Dapke,
          Junior Research Assistant,
          Agricultural School, Hiwara (Gondia),
      

          District - Gondia.                                                   RESPONDENTS
   



                         Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
                     Mrs. Ujjwala A. Patil, counsel for the respondents.





                                        CORAM   :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
                                                        MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.  

DATE : 9 TH JUNE, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order

dated 15.01.2000 terminating the services of the petitioner as a

probationer on the ground that his performance was not satisfactory.

WP 176/00 2 Judgment

2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent no.1-

University on the post of Junior Research Assistant by the order dated

30.12.1996. The petitioner was posted at the Agricultural School,

Hiwara. At Hiwara, the petitioner worked under Shri D.N. There, who

was the superintendent of the said school. Since the petitioner was

appointed on probation for a period of two years, the performance of the

petitioner was examined. It is the case of the petitioner that for a

period of about 1 Year and 4 Months, the performance of the petitioner

was found to be satisfactory and there were no adverse remarks against

the petitioner during this period. It is averred in the petition that from

30.05.1998, after Shri Dapke joined as in-charge superintendent, the

petitioner was regularly served with memos. The probation period of the

petitioner was extended with a view to provide an opportunity to the

petitioner to improve his performance. The period of probation was

extended by a period of one year, till 12.01.2001. The petitioner made

representation for expunging the adverse remarks, however, by the

impugned order dated 01.01.2000, the representation of the petitioner

was rejected. It was observed by the respondent in the order dated

01.01.2000 that the remarks recorded in the confidential reports of the

petitioner for the year 1998-99 were proper and, hence, they could not be

expunged. By an order dated 15.01.2000, the services of the petitioner

were terminated as his performance was not found to be satisfactory. The

aforesaid orders are impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition.

WP 176/00 3 Judgment

3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that though the performance of the petitioner was

satisfactory and the petitioner ought to have been confirmed in

service, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated on the

ground that his performance was not satisfactory. It is submitted that

Shri Dapke, the respondent no.3, who was in-charge superintendent

had a grudge against the petitioner and, hence, he spoiled the

confidential reports of the petitioner. It is submitted that the

performance of the petitioner for the first year was satisfactory but, the

respondents did not communicate the confidential reports to the

petitioner for the first year. It is submitted that Shri Dapke, the in-charge

superintendent could not have assessed the performance of the petitioner

as though he was holding the charge of the superintendent, he was a

Junior Research Assistant. It is submitted that one Junior Research

Assistant could have examined the performance of another Junior

Research Assistant. It is submitted that the petitioner's performance for

the extended period of probation, i.e. for the entire one year ought to

have been assessed, however, the services of the petitioner were

terminated only on the basis of the assessment of the performance for

eight months. The learned counsel sought for the reinstatement of the

petitioner on the post of Junior Research Assistant with consequential

benefits.

WP 176/00 4 Judgment

4. Mrs. Ujjwala Patil, the learned counsel for the respondents,

supported the orders passed by the respondent no.1-University and

submitted that the petitioner's services were brought to an end only

because his performance was not satisfactory. It is submitted that the

case of the petitioner that Shri Dapke, the respondent no.3, had a grudge

against him is incorrect as Shri P.E. Kale, who was the earlier

superintendent, had also recorded adverse remarks against the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim that the performance of

the petitioner was satisfactory when adverse entries were recorded

against the petitioner not only by the respondent no.3-Shri Dapke but, by

Shri P.E. Kale also. It is submitted that the performance of the petitioner

during the first two years was not satisfactory and with a view to grant an

opportunity to the petitioner, the probation period was extended. It is

stated that the petitioner did not improve his performance and, hence, his

services were terminated at the end of the extended period of probation.

It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner that Shri Dapke, the

respondent no.3, could not have assessed the performance of the

petitioner is incorrect as at the relevant time, Shri Dapke was holding the

charge of the superintendent in the school at Hiwara and only he could

have assessed the performance of the petitioner. It is submitted that only

because he was holding the charge of the superintendent, it cannot be

said that he could not have judged the performance of the petitioner. It is

submitted that the petitioner's services are not terminated by assessing his

WP 176/00 5 Judgment

performance of eight months as the performance of the petitioner has

been continuously assessed after his appointment.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the documents that are annexed to the petition and the

affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the

relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner was

appointed as a Junior Research Assistant on probation. The petitioner's

performance during the probation period was not satisfactory. The

respondents, therefore, extended the period of probation by one year. The

petitioner did not challenge the order of extension of probation and

accepted the same. During the extended period of probation and some

time earlier, the petitioner received memos from his superiors. The

petitioner's performance was not found to be satisfactory and he was,

from time to time, conveyed about the same. This is a simple case where

the services of an employee are terminated at the end of the probation

period due to unsatisfactory performance. It is rightly submitted on

behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioner that Shri Dapke

had a grudge against the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner has not

substantiated the said allegation by producing any material on record.

Merely any averment in the petition that Shri Dapke, the respondent no.3,

had a grudge against the petitioner and, therefore, he had issued memos

to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Also, we find that not only Shri

WP 176/00 6 Judgment

Dapke made adverse entries against the petitioner but, Shri P.E. Kale,

under whom the petitioner was working for a considerable period had

also made adverse entries against the petitioner. The case of the

petitioner that the respondent no.3 cannot have judged the performance

of the petitioner as he was also a Junior Research Assistant, cannot be

accepted. Though the respondent no.3 was a Junior Research Assistant,

he was given the charge of the post of Superintendent in the school at

Hiwara, where the petitioner was working. A superintendent is required

to judge the performance of the Junior Research Assistant. A person

holding the charge of the superintendent cannot be said to be

incompetent to assess the performance of his subordinates. It is not in

dispute that Shri Dapke was holding the charge of the post of

superintendent at the relevant time when he recorded the adverse entries

against the petitioner. We do not find that the adverse remarks have

been recorded against the petitioner with spite or ill-will as canvassed on

behalf of the petitioner. The services of the petitioner appear to have

been terminated as the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory.

Though the petitioner made a representation for expunging the adverse

entries, the representation was rejected on the ground that the adverse

entries were correctly recorded. We also do not find that the performance

of the petitioner is judged only for a period of eight months. The

performance of the petitioner was continuously assessed by the

respondents and since it was not satisfactory, his services were terminated

WP 176/00 7 Judgment

at the end of the probation period. The judgment reported in (1996) 8

SCC 762 (State Bank of India & Others Versus Kashinath Kher & Others)

and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner for substantiating

his submission that a person working on a particular post cannot assess

the performance of another person working on the same post, cannot be

made applicable to the facts of this case. In the case before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the character rolls of the officers were prepared by the

officers of the same rank in the same cadre. In the case before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the character rolls were not prepared by the

officers, who were holding the charge of a superior post as was held by

the respondent no.3 in the instant case. In the instant case, the

performance of the petitioner was assessed not by an officer working on

the same rank and post but, by an officer who was the in-charge of a

superior post and was holding the post of a superintendent. If a

superintendent in the school at Hiwara was required to judge the

performance of a Junior Research Assistant at Hiwara and if in the

absence of a regular superintendent, a Junior Research Assistant was

given the charge of the post of superintendent, it cannot be said that the

in-charge superintendent could not have assessed the performance of the

Junior Research Assistant. If the in-charge superintendent had not judged

the performance, as stated on behalf of the petitioner, the performance of

the petitioner could not have been judged at all as only the

superintendent was the head at the school at Hiwara and in the absence

WP 176/00 8 Judgment

of the head, there could not have been any assessment of the performance

of the Junior Research Assistant.

6. Since the orders passed by the respondents are just and

proper, they do not call for any interference in exercise of the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no

order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                                                 
                  JUDGE
                               ig                               JUDGE
                             
    APTE