Vibhav Vikrant vs Chairman,Ntro And Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 650 Del

67.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 662/2011

       VIBHAV VIKRANT                          ..... Petitioner
                    Through Mr. Shanker Raju, Ms.
                    Himantika Saini & Mr. Nilansh Gaur,
                    Advocates.

                     versus

       CHAIRMAN,NTRO AND ANR.             ..... Respondents
                   Through Mr. Khalid Arshad, Advocate for
                   Mr. Atul Nanda, CGSC.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                  ORDER

% 03.02.2011

By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the order

dated 19th January, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (tribunal, for short) in O.A.

No. 164/2011 whereby it has declined to interfere with the order

of the termination passed against the petitioner by the

respondent.

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of External Pilot

in National Technical Research Organization (NTRO, for short)

on 3rd April, 2008 for a period of two years. Clause 5 of the offer

of appointment reads as follows:-

"5. Shri Vaibhav Vikrant will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining which may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. The terms & conditions of service during this period will be governed as per Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 in force from time to time. During this period of probation his services are liable to be terminated without notice or without assigning any reason there of if his performance is found to be not satisfactory or if the Govt. is satisfied that he was ineligible for recruitment to this service/post in the first instance itself."

3. Thereafter a formal order of appointment was issued on

2nd May, 2008. After the order of termination was passed, the

petitioner filed O.A. No. 3491/2010 contending, inter alia, that

the petitioner should have been considered for conversion from

External Pilot (EP) to Internal Pilot (IP). The tribunal directed the

authorities to consider the said representation. The said

representation has been rejected by order dated 24th December,

2010 contained in Annexure P-8.

4. The order of termination and the rejection of

representation were assailed in the present Original Application.

It was contended before the tribunal that after the petitioner

completed the period of two years, he should be deemed to

have been confirmed in the post in question. The tribunal

negatived the said contention by pressing reliance on the

decision in Wasim Beg versus State of U.P. and Others,

(1998) 3 SCC 321 and State of Punjab and Others versus

Sukhwinder Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 569. In our considered

opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal on this score is

absolutely correct as no affirmative order has been passed

relating to confirmation. We may also hasten to state with profit

that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not also challenge

the said aspect and rightly so.

5. The only contention that has been advanced before us is

that the authority should have been well advised to convert from

EP to IP. To bolster the said submission, learned counsel for

the petitioner has invited our attention to the option given by the

petitioner on 31st August, 2010. Relying on the said

communication, it is urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that he had a vested right for consideration. It is not in

dispute that the streams are different and trainings are different.

The claim put forth by the petitioner that he has a vested right for

conversion is not remotely visible from any material brought on

record. Hence, we do not perceive any merit in the said

contention.

6. In view of the aforesaid analysis when the petitioner did

not qualify the test EP training successfully the authority is

justified in terminating his services and by no stretch of

imagination the said order of termination can be regarded as

stigmatic.

7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit

in this writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed

without any order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

FEBRUARY 03, 2011 VKR