JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner faced a written examination and interview and was selected and appointed initially as Apprentice Development Officer vide letter dated February 1, 1993 Annexure-II to the petition. By this letter he was taken as apprentice trainee for 9 months from February 2, 1993 on a fixed stipend of Rs. 2000/- per month. Thereafter, by order dated May 15, 1993 he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer vide Annexure-3 to the petition. In this order he was given targets of work. The Branch Manager submitted a confidential report along with an appraisal and made a recommendation for confirmation of the petitioner vide Annexure-SA-2 to the first Supplementary Affidavit.
2. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 3 the petition that the selection of the petitioner as ADO for a period of nine months was made from the open market out of the general category, on the basis of successful and satisfactory merit in the written examination and interview and then he was appointed in the Divisional Office at Allahabad vide letter dated February 1, 1993. A total number of 23 candidates were selected as ADOs. However, it is alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that he alone out of these 23 candidates was transferred to another operational area under Divisional Officer, Kanpur. As such the petitioner had to undergo three months training at Varanasi and six months on field training at Kanpur. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner had to appear in the written test prior to the expiry of the Apprentice period of nine months.
3. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition that the Divisional Office of LIC at Kanpur fixed the date, time and place for the test of the candidates selected by the Divisional Office, LIC, Kanpur on November 1, 1993, and the test was to be held at Lucknow. It is alleged that the petitioner was informed about the test only on November 1, 1993 at 11.30 a.m. or 12.00 noon and hence he had to leave immediately for Lucknow. As a result he was very tired and he could not answer the questions satisfactorily. Hence, the petitioner could not succeed and he was served with a letter dated September 2, 1993 mentioning his failure in the test. True copy of the letter of termination dated November 2, 1993 is annexed as Annexure-V to the petition. The petitioner then submitted a representation copy of which is Annexure-VI to the petition stating the circumstances and mentioning that he could not complete the test due to shortage of time. The senior Divisional Manager vide letter dated November 5, 1993 made recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure- VII to the petition. The petitioner then wrote a letter dated November 19, 1993 to the Zonal Manager LIC, Kanpur stating the circumstances in which he took the test vide Annexure-8 to the petition. The petitioner was then put to another written test and he had alleged that he has passed the same vide paragraph 8 of the petition. Hence, he was again placed on an initial probation of twelve months w.e.f. March 16, 1994 vide letter of the senior Divisional Manager dated March 17, 1994 Annexure IX to the writ petition. In paragraph 9 of the petition the petitioner has alleged mala fide against the senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Kanpur but since the said Officer has not been impleaded by name we cannot take those allegations into consideration. In paragraph 10 of the petition it is alleged that during the probationary period of one year from March 16, 1994 to March 16, 1995, the petitioner gave good performance exceeding the minimum target required and secured second place in the order of merit of the Branch consisting of 11 Development Officers. It was alleged that there is no complaint against him. A copy of the merit list is Annexure-IX-A to the petition. However, the petitioner's service was again terminated by the letter of the senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Kanpur dated August 16, 1995 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The representation of the petitioner against that order has been rejected by the order of the Zonal Manager, LIC, Kanpur dated November 8, 1996 vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
4. It may be mentioned that by Writ Petition No. 32599 of 1995 the petitioner had challenged the order dated August 16, 1995 passed by the senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Kanpur. The petitioner withdrew this petition on April 28, 1998 and it was dismissed as withdrawn on that date. It is alleged that petitioner withdrew the petition because he was assured by the LIC that his representation will be favourably considered and under this impression he withdrew this petition. Hence, he filed another Writ Petition No. 36983 of 1999 praying for salary from December, 1994 to January, 1996. This petition was disposed of by judgment dated July 28, 1999 directing the authority concerned to decide his representation. The High Court has also directed that petitioner's appeal/representation against the order dated August 16, 1995 be decided expeditiously. The Chairman, LIC, Kanpur then rejected the petitioner's appeal/representation March 15, 2000 vide Annexure-16 to the writ petition.
5. A perusal of the order of the Chairman mentions that in the appointment letter dated March 17, 1994 while appointing the petitioner on probation it was stated that his confirmation would depend on his performance. An enquiry was instituted about the performance of the petitioner during his probationary period and it was not found satisfactory. The details are given in the said order of the Chairman vide Annexure-16 to the writ petition. It is mentioned therein that petitioner had committed irregularities and acted without authority and has misused the deposits to complete the business by unfair practice. The petitioner had also appointed 9 agents by giving false information in the Agency Application Form. The petitioner had also failed to achieve the requisite target and his work was not. satisfactory.
6. In paragraphs 19 to 31 of the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Chairman regarding the facts mentioned therein.
7. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit and we have perused the same. There are also Supplementary Affidavits, Counter-Affidavits and Rejoinder-Affidavits, which we have perused.
8. This Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal over administrative decisions in writ jurisdiction. It can only interfere where there is error of law apparent on the fact of the record. The factual statements made in the order of the Chairman, copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition cannot be gone into by us in writ jurisdiction, as this Court is not hearing a First Appeal. Hence, the scope of interference is limited.
9. It is well settled that a probationer has no right to the post and his appointment can be terminated if his work is found not satisfactory vide Pavendra Narain Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences 2002-I-LLJ-690 (SC). It has been held in paragraph 32 of the same that an employer is entitled to satisfy itself as to the competence of a Probationer, before confirming his service, and for this purpose can satisfy itself fairly as to the truth of any allegation made against him. Even if a charge-sheet has been given and enquiry has been held the order will not necessarily be punitive. This decision of the Supreme Court has referred to several earlier decisions on this point and it is binding on us.
10. Since the petitioner was only a probationer and was not a confirmed employee he has no right to the post. In our opinion the termination order is not punitive as it was made on an assessment of the work of the petitioner.
11. The petition is dismissed.