Ram Kumar Dwivedi vs Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., (Cadre Authority Cell), Lucknow and others

D.S. Sinha, J.—Heard Shri I.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri G.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13th April, 1987, a copy whereof is Annexure-XV to the writ petition. By tills order, services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect.

Vide order dated 9th January, 1987, a copy whereof is Annexure-VI to the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as Manager Grade III, under the Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited, with effect from 15th November, 1986. Clause 3 of the appointment letter indicates that appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of one year which could be extended for another one year, at the sole discretion of the appointing authority.

The period of probation of the petitioner was to expire on 14th November. 1987 but, before expiry of the period of probation, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the impugned order dated 13th April, 1987.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of termination is bad inasmuch as it is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 19 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees'' Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter called the Regulations), which indisputably, are applicable to the petitioner.

In the opinion of the Court, the reliance upon Regulation 19 of the Regulations is misplaced. The said Regulation deals with the termination of a temporary employee. The petitioner was a probationer, and not a temporary employee. Therefore, provisions of Regulation 19 are not attracted.

Regulation 17 of the Regulations deals with matter relating to probationers. Clause (ii) of the Regulation 17 provides that if it appears at any time before or at the end of the period of probation or extended period of probation that a person has not availed the opportunity offered to him for picking up the work or has otherwise failed to give satisfaction, he may, if directly recruited, be removed from the service or if promoted by selection, be reverted to the post from which he was promoted. This provision clearly empowered the relevant authority to remove or terminate the services of the petitioner during the period of probation.

Thus, the impugned order is well within the four corners of law. It does not suffer from any such infirmity which may justify interference of this Court in exercise of its special and extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order/orders shall stand vacated. There is no order as to costs.