SATYABRATA SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 10th May, 1996, whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge quashed an order of termination of service of the petitioner during his probationary period on the ground of unsatisfactory work.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1993 in Border Security Force Senior Secondary Residential School, Kadamtala, Siliguri run and managed by the Border Security Force. The petitioner was appointed on July 15, 1993 by reason of an appointment letter which, inter alia, provided that the petitioner would be under probation for a period of two years. The said period of probation was later on extended for another one year.

( 4 ) IT is stated that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner wherein he was exonerated. The contention of the petitioner, inter alia, is that the school in question is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education and in terms of its guidelines a teacher can be put on probation for a period of one year and the same can be extended to another period of one year. It is, therefore, urged that on the expiry of two years the petitioner would be deemed to have been automatically confirmed. According to the petitioner, as he filed a writ application in this Court, he was not given any pay and ultimately his services had been terminated.

( 5 ) THE case of the appellant in short is that as the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory he did not derive any right to continue in service and in that view of the matter his services had been terminated.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge in his impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the termination of the petitioner's service was bad in law as a disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated against him ended in his exoneration from the charges.

( 7 ) MR. Hazra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner did not have any legal right to continue in service after the expiry of the probationary period. According to the learned Counsel the concerned authority has an unfettered right to terminate his services during the probationary period on the ground of his unsatisfactory performance and, thus, the learned Trial Judge committed a serious error in allowing the writ application. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on K. V. Krishnamani v. Lalit Kala Academy, reported in reported in (1996-II-LLJ-661) and Arun Kumar v. U. P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd. , and Ors. reported in 1997 (1) SLR 136.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was appointed with a stipulation that he would be on probation for two years, which he accepted without any demur whatever. He also accepted the extension of probationary period. The very fact that his probationary period was extended is itself a pointer to the fact that his performance during his probationary period was not satisfactory. The submission of Mr. Ghosh to the effect that the guidelines of the CBSE to which the school in question is affiliated provides for one year probationary period and, thus, the impugned order is bad in law cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Clause 2, L. R. of the CBSE guidelines for affiliation advisedly uses the terminology 'normally. Such a provision has to be made obviously keeping in view the fact that a person may not be appointed permanently straight way and some reasonable period should be fixed for observing his performance. By keeping the petitioner on probation for a period of two years the guidelines of CBSE had not been violated. In fact, a school being affiliated to a Board of University, in the matter of appointment is entitled to fix a higher qualification or impose a greater restriction in the interest of the school itself.

( 9 ) WE also cannot accept the argument of Mr. Ghosh to the effect that principles of natural j

Click Here to Read the rest of this document