Inre : Amar Pal vs U.P.State spinning co.Ltd., kanpur

These three writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law and with the consent of counsel for parties they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

By means of the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 1st of April, 1992, passed by the Managing Director of the U. P. State Spinning Company Limited, which is a U. P. Government undertaking and a subsidiary of the U. P. State Textile Corporation Limited. By the said order the services of the petitioners, who were working as Assistant Grade II, were terminated. The petitioners were appointed as probationers on different dates in 1990. The petitioners were appointed as Assistants Grade II on a probation of two years. It was mentioned in the letters of appointment that the probation period could be extended for a further period of one year without assigning any reason and that their services were liable to be terminated during or at the end of the original or the extended period of probation, as the case may be, without assigning any reason.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in terminating the services of the petitioners as Their work was fully satisfactory, the posts had not been abolished and no reasons have been given for terminating their services and further no opportunity was given to them. The petitioners allege that persons junior 10 them have been retained in service, whereas their services has been terminated.

In the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the Company it is stated that during the period of probation the petitioner was assigned the typing work and his work was not found satisfactory and that opportunity was given to him by letter dated 7th of October, 1991 to acquire a speed of 30/40 words per minute either in Hindi or in English within next three months. A typing test was taken on the 16th March, 1992 and the petitioner did not acquire the requisite speed and in Fact in 5 minutes he could type only 168 words in Hindi typing in which he had committed 36 full mistakes and half mistakes. In the English typing the petitioner typed, only 180 words, in which he had committed 30 full mistakes and 5 half mistakes. As the typing speed of the petitioner was less than 26 words per minute and as he had failed to acquire the minimum efficiency his services as a probationer were terminated on the 1st of July, 1992.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the employers in terminating the services of the petitioners cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Unit Trust of India and others v. T. Bijaya Kumar and another 1992 (3) Scale 100 (SC) has laid down the law that the services of a probationary employee can be terminated if his performance is unsatisfactory and that a probationer has no right to the post The very purpose of placing a person on probation is to try him during the probation period to assess his suitability for the job in question and as such it is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing before terminating his services.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reason which weighed with the management for terminating the services of the petitioners was unsuitability for the job based on their unsatisfactory performance during the probationery period and as such the order does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, this Court by an interim order dated 1641992 had stayed the operation of the terminations orders as a result of which the petitioners continued in service. Even after termination of their services the petitioners have worked with the Company for period of about 18 months. In view of this Fact the Court feels that it would be in the interest of justice and equity that the management takes another test of the petitioners within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed by them before the respondent no. 1. If the performance of the petitioners is found to be satisfactory and they have attained the requisite speed in typing as prescribed by the Company, then they would be allowed to continue in service. However, if the performance of the petitioners in the test to be taken under the directions of this Court is not found satisfactory, their services shall automatically come to an end, but the salaries received by them by virtue of the passing of the interim orders by this Court on the 16th of April, 1992 shall not be refundable to the Company.

Subject to the directions given above, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.

(Petitions dismissed.)