Judgment

Altamas Kabir, J.

After an outstanding academic career under the Rajasthan Secondary Board and the University of Jodhpur, the Respondent appeared for the Civil Services Examination, 1998, conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and on account of his brilliant performance, he was appointed to the Indian Foreign Service on 21st September, 1999. But on 13th June, 2002, he was discharged from service by the following order :-

"The President hereby discharges forthwith from service Shri Mahaveer C. Singhvi, IFS Probationer (1999 Batch), in accordance with the terms of employment issued vide order No.Q/PA.II/578/32/99 dated 21st September, 1999.

By order and in the name of the President.

Sd/-

(P.L. Goyal)

Addl. Secretary (AD)"

2. Although, the aforesaid order appears to be an innocuous order of discharge simpliciter of a probationer, the same has given rise to a question of law relating to service jurisprudence which has been considered over and over again for the last five decades. However, even though the principles laid down by this Court in the various cases have been uniformly followed, there have been individual cases which have thrown up new but related issues which have been considered on their own merits. As will be apparent from the aforesaid order dated 13th June, 2002, the question with which we are concerned in this Special Leave Petition (S.L.P.) relates to the discharge from service of a probationer during his period of probation. In order to be able to appreciate the said question in the facts of this case, it is necessary to set out the background in which the order of 13th June, 2002, came to be passed and the manner in which the same was dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.

3. The case made out by the Respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, is that he was deployed to the East Asia Division of the Ministry of External Affairs. He was, thereafter, asked to give his preference for allotment of the study of a compulsory foreign language. The Respondent opted for French, German, Arabic and Spanish in the said order of preference. In view of his position in the merit list, the Respondent should have been allotted German. However, in deviation from the prevalent procedure whereby the allotments relating to study of a compulsory foreign language were made on the basis of graduation in the merit list, the Respondent was informed by a letter dated 11th January, 2001, that he had been allotted Spanish which was his last choice. The Respondent thereafter made a representation against such allotment, but he was directed by the Petitioner No.2 Mr. P.L. Goyal, who was the then Additional Secretary (Admn.), to remain silent over the issue. The Respondent was, thereafter, posted in Madrid, Spain, in confirmation of the allocation of Spanish to him, but for his language training he was directed to proceed to Valladolid, which was at a great distance from Madrid. The Respondent thereupon made a further request for arranging his language training at Madrid, where he had been posted since he wanted to take his dependent and ailing parents with him to Madrid. On account of the sudden deterioration of the health condition of his parents, the Respondent sought permission to join the language course at a later date and such permission was apparently granted by the Mission at Madrid by a communication dated 10th September, 2001. As the date for the new course was not intimated to the Respondent and there was no improvement in his father's condition, the Respondent sought further extension to join the Mission and the same was also granted on 18th February, 2002. Accordingly, the Respondent planned to join the Mission in July/August, 2002, but in the note of 18th February, 2002, the request for providing medical facilities and diplomatic passports to the Respondent's dependent parents was not granted. According to the Respondent, he was thereafter served with the order of