Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51426 of 2012 Petitioner :- Atam Prakash Pratap Singh Respondent :- The L.I.C.Of India Thru Its Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,O.P.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal,P.Padia,S.C.,Samir Sharma,Shruti Malviya
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was initially offered appointment as Apprentice Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India vide order dated 05.11.2008. Subsequently, on 09.02.2009 petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Development Officer on probation basis. Appointment on probation was for a period of twelve months, which could be extended by further period of twelve months. Upon completion of one year the term of probation was extended for two months vide order dated 25.02.2010, which records that petitioner has not achieved the target allotted to him and that his services were liable to be terminated. This extension order also records that in order to given him an opportunity to accomplish the target for one year his period of probation is extended to 31.03.2010. The aforesaid extension of probation was followed with subsequent order passed on 29.06.2010 with similar stipulation that petitioner was being given an opportunity to accomplish target assigned to him for initial twelve months period. It appears that petitioner could not complete the target assigned to him and ultimately vide order impugned dated 03.02.2011 petitioner's services have been terminated while on probation. This order records that petitioner's performance has not been satisfactory during the last two years. It is also recorded in the order that despite letters sent to petitioner on 16.07.2010 and 01.02.2011 the petitioner's performance regarding new business has remained poor and the cost ratio is much higher than the prescribed for engagement of such officer. It has also been recorded that despite probation period having been extended by an year the petitioner has not been able to improve his performance.
Order impugned is challenged on the ground that respondent Corporation has arbitrarily restricted the extension of probation to couple of months at a time and that the last four months preceding the order of termination no order existed for extending petitioner's period of probation. It has also been urged with reference to regulation 23 of LIC of India (Apprentice Development Officers) Recruitment Regulations, 1999, contained in Annexure-1 to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, that requirement of submission of periodical reports and its intimation to the probationer has not been followed.
A counter affidavit, on the other hand, has been filed on behalf of respondent Corporation stating that petitioner had failed to secure target assigned to him for one year and, therefore, the decision taken by the Corporation to terminate petitioner's engagement during his continuance on probation is just and valid. Submission is that it is the right of employer to assess performance of probationer for the purposes of confirmation of his services and as the order visits with no stigma or punishment, therefore, termination merits no interference.
I have heard Sri P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation and have perused the materials brought on record.
Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner was initially offered appointment as Apprentice Development Officer on 05.11.2008 and the same was followed with appointment offered to him on the post of Probationary Development Officer. This appointment order is Annexure-3 to the writ petition and clearly records that appointment is offered with reference to his application in terms of Regulations of 1999. Appointment letter specifies the target to be achieved by a probationer during period of one year. Clause 13 of the appointment letter also specifies that as Probationary Development Officer petitioner's services would be governed by the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 as amended from time to time.
The records further reveal that petitioner failed to achieve target assigned to him in the initial order of appointment, and therefore, the period of probation was extended vide subsequent orders on 25.02.2010 and 29.06.2010. The order extending probation period categorically records that petitioner had failed to achieve targets which were given to him. These extension orders have been served upon the petitioner and there is no challenge laid to it in this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the fact that probation was lastly extended till 31.07.2010 vide order dated 29.06.2010 and that period of probation was not extended any further. This itself would not be material inasmuch as there exits no stipulation in the appointment letter or in the applicable Staff Regulations of 1960 for automatic confirmation of a probationer, if the period of probation is not extended by a specific order. The status of petitioner would continue as that of Probationer till an order of confirmation is passed by the competent authority. His status during the period of probation, therefore, would remain intact even during these four months.
Respondents have specifically disclosed performance of petitioner in para 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit. It has been clearly indicated that performance of petitioner was much below the targets which were assigned to him. Although a supplementary rejoinder affidavit has been filed but the averments made in para 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit about petitioner's unsatisfactory work is not disputed. Respondents, therefore, would clearly be entitled in law to draw an adverse inference with regard to petitioner's services being unsatisfactory as he had failed to secure the targets assigned to him in initial appointment order itself.
So far as applicability of regulation 23 of the Regulations of 1999 is concerned, it is to be noticed that these regulations would have no applicability upon the case of petitioner since his initial offer of appointment dated 09.02.2009 clearly stipulates that appointment as Probationary Development Officer shall be governed by the Regulations of 1960. The Regulations of 1999 were relevant only for the purposes of consideration of claim for appointment Probationary Development Officer and when an appointment was offered on such post it was the Regulations of 1960 which would govern the service conditions of the Probationer. No provision of Regulations of 1960 is shown to have been violated.
In view of the discussions aforesaid, this Court finds that the petitioner's initial appointment on probation provided targets to be achieved within a period of twelve months. It is also apparent on record that petitioner failed to achieve such targets within one year or even within the period of extension. On the basis of such facts an objective opinion could easily be formed that petitioner's services were not satisfactory during the period of probation. Such satisfaction of the competent authority is neither shown to be perverse nor is arbitrary for any reasons. In such circumstances, the termination of petitioner's services during the period of probation on the ground of his unsatisfactory work merits no interference.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Ashok Kr.