Miss. Anamika Saxena vs Resident Director, Manas Sthali and Others

M. Katju, J.—The petitioner was appointed as a probationer by letter dated July 31, 1995 annexure-3 to the writ petition in Manas Sthali Residential Public School. A perusal of the said letter shows that the appointment was purely on probation for the current academic session and the extension of the probationary period would depend on performance and output during the current session. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated June 11, 1996 annexure No.6 to the writ petition by which the petitioner''s service was terminated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was nothing wrong with the work and conduct of the petitioner. It is not for this Court to assess the work and conduct of the petitioner. The law of probation is well settled. Ordinarily, even on the expiry of the probation period there is no automatic confirmation and the person continues on probation even after the expiry of the period mentioned in the appointment letter until and unless a positive order of confirmation is passed. The only exception to this Rule is where the maximum period of probation has been fixed in the Rules, and in such cases it has been held that the service of the employee gets automatically confirmed on the expiry of this maximum period of probation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner showed me the relevant Bye- laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education to which the Respondent No. 3 is affiliated. Rule 27 of the same states that the initial period of probation shall be for one year and this may be extended by the Management Committee for a further period of one year. Thus the maximum period of probation is two years. Since the petitioner was appointed by letter dated July 31, 1995 it is obvious that the maximum period of probation has not expired and hence the petitioner remained on probation. Hence the petitioner has no right to hold the post.

The writ petition is dismissed.