The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of probationary service must adhere to principles of fairness and proportionality, as established by relevant case laws and the applicable statutory provisions.

Under challenge in this writ petition are communications both dated 21st April, 2017 made by Presidency University, separately to petitioners, text of which, being identical, is reproduced below :-

“I am directed to inform you that your performance during the probationary period of service has been found unsatisfactory. It has been decided not to further extend your period of probation which will expire on 26.05.2017 and not to confirm your service.

Therefore you are discharged from your probationary service of the Presidency University, Kolkata, forthwith.”

2. Mr. Oja, learned advocate appeared on behalf of petitioners and drew attention to their also identically worded letters of appointment from which following is extracted :-

“Your service with the University will be governed by its service rules and this includes a probation period of one year from the date of joining this University.”

3. Mr. Ojha relied on judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar Singh vs. Vijaya Bank & Ors. reported in 2013 Lab IC 656. He relied on paragraphs 24 and 30 to submit, his clients are similarly situate as petitioner in that case. They have not been served, at any point of time, any communication pointing out defect in their work or deficiency, to give them opportunity to rectify their shortcomings. He submitted, in that case a judgment of Supreme Court was relied upon, which he relied upon as well. It is Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1431 as also (1989) 3 SCC 311. He placed paragraph 5 of said judgment and submitted, the University in terminating probationary services of his clients acted arbitrarily in the facts and circumstances. He also relied on another judgment of Supreme Court in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank versus Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. and Another reported in (2007) 4 SCC 669, paragraph 20. He submitted, there is lack of proportionality on part of the University in terminating his clients’ probationary service. In event their services were found to be deficient or there was otherwise unsuitability, it would have been proportional on part of the University to notify his clients. Termination orders are wholly out of proportion.

4. His further point was founded on disclosure in affidavit-in-reply of his clients, against affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no.4. Referring to first annexure therein he submitted, another probationer given appointment as such, under same recruitment process, was given notice to improve herself and at present she is likely to be confirmed. Here again there is an act of discrimination palpable against his clients.

5. On later occasion Mr. Ojha, relied on two judgments of learned single Judges of different High Courts in support of his first point. First is in Ms. Chaula Kuruwa Vs. Tourism Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. & Ors., decided on 11th March, 1991 by High Court of Gujarat. He relied on paragraphs 8, 9, 11 and 14. Clear view taken is probationer must be put on notice, not only on deficiencies or unsuitability but by giving particulars. Second judgment is in Saroj Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 15th March, 2010 by High Court of Gauhati, paragraphs 18 & 19. On point of discrimination he relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Astamija Dash reported in (2008) 14 SCC 370, to paragraphs 37 & 40.

6. He then moved on to his last point, of stigma. He submitted, it is not necessary in adjudication of stigma for termination letter to carry words that are stigmatic. Surrounding circumstances leading upto issue of termination letter might constitute stigma as does in case of his clients. He referred to paragraph 10 of the writ petition where petitioner no. 2 has said about beginning of his falling out with respondent no. 4, head of concerned department in the university. Incident referred to in said paragraph happened on 26th August, 20