AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and S.K. Singh, J.—This petition has been filed by an officer of the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank at Arah. The facts are short.
The Petitioner was appointed on a probation. At the time of his appointment he was at serial No. 1 on the merit list. During the period of probation he was absent as being sick with Jaundice. The fact that he was absent and ill with (sic) dice is not an issue. There is a fair(sic) the counter affidavit that the pe(sic) absence was also due to his availing without pay for research work. This (sic) ment is in paragraph-9 of the coun (sic) davit. In the rejoinder affidavit the pe(sic) mentions that his leave had been (sic)tioned upon satisfaction of the Chaim(sic) was a medical leave and on this there (sic) issue.
It appears from the record tha(sic) cause for the extended period of probl(sic) of the Petitioner was his being on lea(sic) an unusually long time.
After the probation period was (sic) whether the first or the extended on(sic) Petitioner found himself at the botto(sic) the list. The contention of the petition that the regulation which governs his (sic) ice particularly the aspect of probatio(sic) structured so rigidly that the evaluation (sic) an extended period of probation can (sic) even be taken into account. It is conten(sic) that whether an incumbent has discha(sic) a satisfactory extended period of proh(sic) or not, the net result will be that h(sic) continue to remain at the button of the (sic) This regulation i.e. 13(3) of the Regu(sic) is re-produced below:
(3) In the case of an office employee whose probation has (sic) extended, his seniority shall been (sic) oned just below all the officers (sic) ployees, if any, recruited or pro(sic) the same batch along with him (sic).
One aspect needs to be (sic) What was the purpose of exteneding period of probation of the Petitioner (sic) period of probation was unsatisfactory the Petitioner should have been (sic) service. May be, that it was exte(sic) evaluate further. At the time of (sic) service, the Petitioner was at series (sic) the merit list. After he took leave (sic) after extended probation, he was at the bottom of the list. There is no (sic) on record to show as to what was (sic)son for which the Petitioner was put (sic)ded probation. Whether it was a (sic)stance which was involuntary to the (sic)her the record does not reflect. If the (sic) was on medical leave duly sanc(sic) and he was suffering from Jaundice, (sic) circumstance was involuntary to Petitioner. The management, thus, may extended the period of probation so judge him yet more in lieu of his (sic)ce from service. The evaluation on extended period of probation has not made. It cannot be reckoned be-(sic) the regulation as structured pre-(sic) the management from going into this (sic)ct.
Whether the management modu(sic) its regulation in context is entirely (sic)he management but, in the present instances not to evaluate the extended (sic) of probation of the Petitioner and to (sic)anically put him at bottom on the list (sic) air and arbitrary.
In the circumstances, the petition (sic) eeds and the representation of the (sic)ner which was rejected on the ground (sic)nicality that the regulation does not (sic) it, is an arbitrary stand on a rigid (sic)bitrary regulation.
The order dated 3 February 1998, (sic)ure ''6'' to the petition of Chairman of (sic)ank declining to revise the seniority of Petitioner, and the order dated 21 July (sic) of the Board of the Directors on the (sic) and the consequential communicated 9.9.1998, annexure ''8'' to peti(sic)re quashed. The Respondents-bank (sic) obliged to consider and evaluate the (sic) of the Petitioner during the ex-(sic) period of probation and this be within two months from today.
This petition is, accordingly, allowed.