B.K. Sharma, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is the Annexure-G order dated 2nd November, 2015, by which the services of the petitioner as Chauffeur has been dispensed with on the ground of not being found suitable. For a ready reference, the said order is reproduced below:-

"Order

Dated 2nd November, 2015

No. HC.V-103/2015/794/Estt ##### Sri Prasanta Kalita, Chauffeur of this Registry who was appointed vide this Registry's order No.HC.V-19/2015/239/Estt dated 19.03.2015 and is on probation, is discharged from the service of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati with immediate effect as he is not found suitable. His name stands struck off from the roll of staff of the Gauhati High Court Registry."

2. The petitioner was appointed as Chauffeur (Barkandaz) in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court vide Annexure-F order dated 19th March, 2015. His such appointment was pursuant to the Annexure-B advertisement dated 9th December, 2013 and the selection conducted pursuant thereto, which included driving test and interview. It appears that in the selection, the petitioner topped the list of successful candidates and accordingly his name appeared at serial No. 1 of the merit list (Annexure-E).

3. When the petitioner was continuing as Chauffeur in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court, he was discharged from service by the above quoted order dated 2nd November, 2015. Apart from the ground of unsuitability (not found suitable), no other ground is assigned in the impugned order nor the petitioner was informed of anything regarding his unsuitability. It is an admitted position that before dispensing with the service of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2015, he was not put to any kind of notice. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following grounds:-

"15. That a perusal of the impugned order would show that petitioner has been discharged from the service of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati on the ground that he is not found suitable. With respect, petitioner humbly submits that to be best of his knowledge, no assessment of suitability has been undertaken either in respect of the petitioner or in respect of the other appointees who were appointed with the petitioner on 19-03-2015. Petitioner asserts that he has not conducted himself in any manner which could even remotely be termed as unbecoming or unsuitable for High Court service. It is not understood on what basis or in what manner the authority has come to the conclusion that petitioner is not found suitable, more so when the probation period is not yet over.

16. That the post of Barkandaz is a Class IV post belonging to the High Court Subordinate Service governed by the provisions of the Gauhati High Court (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967. As per Rule 6(b), appointment to Class IV posts shall be made by the Registrar by direct recruitment after selection test. Rule 14 provides that every person on appointment to the High Court service shall be on probation for a period of one year unless otherwise ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. However, the period of probation may be extended for failure to give satisfaction. Rule 15 deals with confirmation. As per Rule 15(ii), a member of the subordinate service may also be confirmed 'likewise' in the post of which he has been appointed only when the Registrar is satisfied that he is fit for confirmation with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 'Likewise' as referred to above means the like manner in which a member of superior or ministerial service is confirmed i.e. completion of the period of service and satisfaction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice that he is fit for confirmation.

17. That in the present case, the period of probation is yet to be completed. Therefore, the impugned discharge is contrary to the provisions of Rule 15. Not only that, no assessment of suitability has been carried out in res