The court affirmed that the appellant's appointment was direct recruitment on probation, allowing termination for unsatisfactory performance, and clarified the distinction between promotional and direct recruitment appointments.

JUDGMENT :

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no.2. The appellant in person, who appeared through video conferencing, has also been heard. We have also perused the records available before us.

2. Before delving into the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we need to note certain facts which are essential and relevant for the purposes of adjudicating the issue involved in this Letter Patent Appeal.

3. The appellant before being appointed on the post of General Manager (HR) in Central Electronics Limited - respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the „CEL’), a Central Public Sector Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as the „CPSE’), was working in another CPSE, namely, Coal India Limited/Central Coal Fields Limited (hereinafter referred to as the „CCL’).

4. While he was working with CCL, an advertisement was issued by CEL - respondent no.2 in the year 2017 bearing advertisement no.98/PERS/1/2017, for appointment on various posts, including the post of General Manager (HR).

5. Clause 8 of the General Instructions appended to the advertisement clearly stated that candidates in Grade E6 and above will be on probation for a period of one year, and candidates below Grade E6 will be on probation for two years. The said Clause is extracted herein below:

“8. The selected candidates in Grade E6 and above, will be on Probation for a period of one year and candidates below Grade E6 will be on probation for two years”

6. Clause 14 of the General Instructions stipulated that candidates employed in Central/State Government, Autonomous Bodies, PSUs, should apply through the proper channel or submit a No Objection Certificate at the time of interview from their employer. It is noteworthy at this juncture itself that advertisement was issued for direct recruitment, as is apparent from such a stipulation contained in the advertisement itself. The appellant, pursuant to the said advertisement, applied for being appointed on the post of General Manager (HR) and, having been selected, was issued an Offer of Appointment by respondent no.2, dated 22.07.2017.

7. Clause 2(a) of the Offer of Appointment dated 22.07.2017, provided that the appellant shall be on probation for a period of one year or until such time thereafter when confirmation is intimated in writing. It further provided that during the probationary period his services shall be liable to be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason, and further that during the probation the appellant may leave the company‟s service after giving one month‟s notice in writing. Further stipulation in Clause 2(a) of the Offer of Appointment dated 22.07.2017 provided that the period of probation can be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. Clause 2(a) of the Offer of Appointment dated 22.07.2017 is extracted hereunder:

“2. (a)You will be on probation for a period of one year or until such time thereafter when confirmation is intimated in writing. During the probationary period, your services shall be liable to be terminated without notice and without assigning any reasons whatsoever. During the probation you may leave the Company‟s service after giving one month's notice in writing. The period of probation can be extended at the discretion of the competent authority.”

8. The appellant accepted the said Offer of Appointment dated 22.07.2017 without any protest or demur, and joined respondent no.2 on the post of General Manager (HR) and simultaneously submitted his technical resignation from his erstwhile employ