Karnataka High Court
Kum. Sowmya R vs The Registrar General on 21 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:34200-DB
WA No. 1154 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1154 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KUM. SOWMYA R,
D/O P S RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
STENOGRAPHER,
R/A DOOR NO.16/10,
MANGALADEVINAGARA,
MADIKERI-571 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
VANI B HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location: BENGALURU-560 001.
HIGH COURT
OF 2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE
KARNATAKA
KODAGU-MADIKERI,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT &
SESSION JUDGE COURT,
KODAGU-571 201.
3. THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JFMC,
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
COURT AT PONNAMPET, VIRAJPET,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:34200-DB
WA No. 1154 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) ALLOW THE
WRIT APPEAL AND B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.11366/2022 DATED
14/06/2023 AND C) QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN
PROCEEDINGS BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN DES
NO.593/2019 DATED 15/02/2019 AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO RESTORE THE PETITIONER AS
STENOGRAPHER WITH AREAS OF SALARY AND CONTINUITY OF
SERVICE AND D) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This intra-Court appeal by the unsuccessful writ
petitioner seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's
order dated 14.06.2023, whereby her W.P No.11366/2022
(S-RES) wherein a challenge was laid to the order dated
15.02.2019 discharging her from service.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues
that the order of termination of her client from service is
apparently stigmatic in the light of attending
circumstances and therefore, learned Single Judge is not
right in denying relief.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and having perused the appeal papers we decline
NC: 2023:KHC:34200-DB
WA No. 1154 of 2023
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge who has structured
the impugned order placing reliance on two decisions of
the Apex Court viz. DEEPTI PRAKASH BANNERJI vs.
SATYENDRANATH BOSE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BASIC
SCIENCES, (1999) 3 SCC 60 and DIRECTOR OF
ARYABHATA RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF OBSERVATIONAL
SCIENCES vs. DEVENDRA JOSHI, (2018) 3 SLR 125 (SC).
4. We hardly need to add that an employee during the
period of probation has lesser rights qua the employee
whose probationary period has been successfully
completed. The object of placing an employee on
probation is two fold: the employer will have opportunity
of assessing the suitability of the employee for the job in
question and similarly, the employee too will have an
occasion to assess the suitability of employment. During
the said period both have an option as to continuation in
employment. Justice Rama Jois in his "SERVICES UNDER
THE STATE" N.M.Tripati Publication - 1987 at Page 390
writes as under:
NC: 2023:KHC:34200-DB
WA No. 1154 of 2023
"A person who is directly recruited is
normally kept on probation for the prescribed
number of years as prescribed in the
recruitment rules. The period of probation is
the period of trial during which the suitability of
the officer to the post to which he is recruited is
to be tested. During the period of probation,
an official maybe required to pas certain
departmental examinations and/r to prove his
integrity and ability and capacity to discharge
the duties of the post. Therefore, during the
period of probation, a person acquires no right
to hold the post."
5. The vehement of the learned counsel for the
appellant that his client having been appointed as a
stenographer in the Court of Civil Judge, Virajpet on
29.08.2012 and having completed all the departmental
examination, cannot be made to suffer termination from
service by a stroke of pen, is bit difficult to countenance.
It has been a settled position of law although under the
service rules probationary period is required to be treated
as if it is substantive it is only limited for certain purposes
under the civil services rules but a probationer cannot be
treated as a person holding the spot substantively. A
person appointed on probation becomes a permanent
NC: 2023:KHC:34200-DB
WA No. 1154 of 2023
employee only after the issue of an express order of
confirmation. By the mere expiry of the period of
probation and continuing in service after the expiry of the
period of probation, a civil servant does not automatically
acquire the status of a permanent member of the service,
unless the rules expressly provide for automatic
confirmation. Such a rule is not cited before us. We do
not mean to say that there can be no case falling in the
category of exception to this general rule of service
jurisprudence. However, appellant has not made out a
case for the invocation for exception to the rule.
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and accordingly, rejected in limine.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/AHB
