The termination of a probationer's services is non-stigmatic if it is based on unsatisfactory performance during the probation period and the appointment order does not stipulate a maximum period of probation or confirmation by afflux of time.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of Certiorari calling for the entire record of the case and quashing the office order dated (OO)29.03.2019 purporting to remove the petitioner.

b) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of Certiorari calling for the entire record of the case and quashing the office order (OO) dated 17TH May, 2019 purporting to the appointment of respondent no. 4 as Messenger-cum-Cleaner in the Indian Embassy at Berne, Switzerland.

c) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of Certiorari calling for the entire record of the case and quashing the office order (OO) dated 26.03.2019.

d) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to treat petitioner continuously without break on duty as local Messenger-cum-Cleaner at the Indian Embassy in Berne [Switzerland] and allow her to work till she attains the age of superannuation of 65 years i.e. to say up to 27.12.2040 and pay all her emoluments accordingly."

2. Narrative of facts as brought out in the writ petition is that Petitioner was selected and appointed as Messenger-cum-Cleaner by the Embassy of India, Berne vide Office Order dated 10.04.2018 on probation for a period of six months on monthly salary of CHF 3,000/- in the pay scale of CHF 3000-7350. Simultaneously, another Office Order dated 10.04.2018 was issued by the Embassy of India, Berne specifying the conditions of service of the Petitioner, which according to the Petitioner did not contain any stipulation for extending the probation period and therefore at the end of six months her services were deemed to be confirmed.

3. On 24.09.2018, an office addendum was issued by the Embassy deleting para 7(1) of the order dated 10.04.2018 disentitling the Petitioner to claim overtime allowance, against which Petitioner made representations. As a counterblast to this, on 26.03.2019 probation period of the Petitioner was extended by three months i.e. upto 09.07.2019, despite there being no power to extend the probation period. Petitioner was not allowed to report on duty and was manhandled by the security guards. A detailed representation was thereafter made to the competent authority by the Petitioner on 14.04.2019, ventilating her grievances.

4. The Indian Embassy issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Messenger-cum-Cleaner on its website and local newspaper requiring applications to be submitted on or before 08.05.2019. This led to filing of writ petition being WP(C) 5476/2019 assailing re- advertisement of the post. On 20.05.2019 when the writ petition was listed, counsel for the Respondents informed the Court that services of the Petitioner had been terminated vide order dated 29.03.2019 and the petition was rendered infructuous. Respondent No.1 therein was directed by the Court to furnish the details of the fresh appointee to the Petitioner within a week and Petitioner was given liberty to challenge the appointment, if so aggrieved, before the appropriate forum and the writ petition was disposed of. Vide order dated 17.05.2019 Sh. Omraj Lama/Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Messenger-cum-Cleaner on probation for six months, whose appointment is also challenged in the present writ petition.

5. Challenging the order of termination dated 29.03.2019, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that while it is true that confirmation cannot be sought as a matter of right by the Petitioner, being a probationer, however, it is a settled law that where termination of probation is shown to be actuated by malafide/vindictiveness and/or is founded on allegations, it cannot be sustained in law, if no inquiry was held prior to the termination in consonance with principles of natural justice. It is equally settled that once the probation period comes to an end and there is no stipulation in the appointment letter or the governin