Delhi High Court
Amarnath Menokodath Remanan vs The Chairman, National Institute ... on 18 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 4929/2012
% 18th September , 2013
AMARNATH MENOKODATH REMANAN ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JEWELLERY DESIGN
AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Eshita Baruah, proxy counsel for
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears for the petitioner on both the first call and the second
call.
2. By this writ petition petitioner challenges the impugned order dated
7th April, 2011 terminating his services. Petitioner was on probation for two
years in terms of the appointment letter dated 12.12.2008 and the period of
two years was effective from 3.10.2008.
3. Petitioner essentially contends that since the period of two years has
expired, and he has continued thereafter, there is automatic confirmation of
services. Petitioner also states that he was not issued any show cause notice
WPC 5824/2013 Page 1 of 4
of any deficiency in service during the period of probation, and therefore,
the petitioner should be held to have successfully completed the probation
period.
4. Respondents filed their counter-affidavit as also documents which
show that petitioner's services were not satisfactory. In this regard, note of
the employer dated 26.5.2010 is relied upon along with the contents of the
Minutes of Meeting dated 11.10.2010. Note dated 26.5.2010 shows that the
petitioner should get more business inasmuch as there was under utilization
of capacity. The employer stated that even the break-even target was not
being achieved and therefore business generation was required by the
petitioner. It is also noted that the petitioner should not meet any ex-student
so as to maintain trade secrecy.
5. In the Minutes of Meeting which was held for reviewing continuation
of services of the probationers, the following was stated with respect to the
petitioner:
"(1d) In respect of Mr.Amarnath M.R., Gemmologist,
the members were not happy with his representations.
While interacting, he requested that, he would be grateful if
DSIIDC could consider to continue him on some level in the
service. Members gave him the facts and figures of the
authority of this sub-committee limited to only discussing
within the ambit of NIJDT, where they were authorized to
dwell upon being Governing Body members. On possibility
WPC 5824/2013 Page 2 of 4
of continuing with him any more, with NIJDT even, was not
advisable, as his past records did not favour him at all, due
to lapses in discipline, conduct and behaviour. Although, he
had sufficient qualification to be a gemologist, there were no
students in Gemmology for the last several months nor there
were stones coming for test at the NIJDT during his tenure.
His superiors were also not happy with his services as per
the record held in the office.
Justification: Members felt that he may not be confirmed
in the services of NIJDT and he being not required any
more, may be relieved. Members took note that his
probation period has ended on 3rd October, 2010 after which
the assessment made by his superiors of NIJDT did not
favour him to be confirmed."
6. Therefore, in my opinion, petitioner is not justified in contending that
he had given satisfactory services. Whether or not services were satisfactory
is to be decided by the employer and not by this Court. The petitioner is not
justified in contending that his services should be taken as satisfactory
because no show cause notice was served upon him during the period of
probation inasmuch as it is settled law that no show cause notice is required
to be served upon a probationer before terminating services. It is so held by
the Supreme Court in the judgments in the cases of Muir Mills Unit of NTC
(U.P.) Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491,
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC
447 and Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC
WPC 5824/2013 Page 3 of 4
623.. Therefore, I reject the argument that the petitioner was bound to be
given a show cause notice before his services were terminated.
7. Argument urged by the petitioner that he automatically is confirmed
after the expiry of two years is a misconceived argument because no rule of
employer is relied upon to show that there is automatic confirmation and in
the employer's appointment letter also there is no provision for automatic
confirmation after two years. In fact, with respect to all probationers
including the petitioner, a notice dated 6.10.2008 was issued for reviewing
the performance for confirmation. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner has
been discriminated against and all other probationers were not examined
before confirmation. Once a review committee sits to decide the adequacy of
performance in the probation period, and which has been done so far as the
petitioner is concerned, and there are observations that his services are less
than satisfactory, petitioner cannot claim automatic confirmation of
probation.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition being without any merit is,
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
rb
