Dr. Bansidhar Barik vs Indian Council Of Philosophical ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 357 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 14028/2009

%                                              14th January , 2015

DR. BANSIDHAR BARIK                                 ......Petitioner
                  Through:               Mr. M.C.Dhingra, Adv.


                          VERSUS

INDIAN COUNCIL OF PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH AND ORS.
                                       ...... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Sahil
                           Bhalaik, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment but

considering the order of the Registrar which is reproduced below, I do not

find it a case for adjournment inasmuch as counsel is not a new counsel but

is the counsel who was the counsel who has filed the writ petition itself.

Also, the counsel himself admits that the petitioner is not contacting him for

some time now.




WPC 14028/2009                                                             Page 1 of 3
 2.           On 9.1.2015 the Registrar has passed the following order and

listed the matter before this Court:-


             "     Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has
             already been filed. However, rejoinder thereto has not been
             filed by the petitioner despite opportunity granted on
             08.12.2014. It is noticed that there has been no appearance on
             behalf of the petitioner on 08.01.2014, 16.04.2014, 26.08.2014,
             30.10.2014 and 08. 12.2014 and even today nobody has
             appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite the matter having
             been passed over once. The matter is fixed before the Hon'ble
             Court on 14.01.2015.
                   Issue court notice to counsel for the petitioner as well as
             to the petitioner without process fee, returnable on the date
             already fixed before the Hon'ble Court i.e.14.01.2015."
3.           Petitioner's services while serving on probation with the

respondent no.1 were terminated pursuant to the recommendations of a

Committee dated 5.12.2009. Petitioner was appointed in terms of the letter

dated 20.12.2007 of the respondent no.1/employer, para 1 of which states that

petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years. Therefore, it is

during the period of probation that petitioner's services have been terminated

effectively thereby petitioner's services were terminated holding that he

should not be confirmed in service.


4.           The law with respect to disentitlement of a probationary officer

to question the decision of the employer not to continue with the services is


WPC 14028/2009                                                             Page 2 of 3
 now well settled because it is the employer who is best suited to decide the

suitability of a probation officer. It is also settled law that before terminating

the services of a probation officer, principles of natural justice are not

required to be followed vide Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of

Jharkhand & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 447 and Muir Mills of Unit NTC (U.P) Ltd.

Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491.

5.           In view of the above, not only the petitioner is guilty of non-

prosecution and non-appearance on repeated dates, even on merits petitioner

has no case because a probation officer can always be terminated during the

period of probation and courts do not substitute their opinion with the

employer to decide the suitability of an employee unless there is perversity

amounting to gross arbitrariness, and which is not found in the present case.


6.           Dismissed.




JANUARY 14, 2015                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib