The legal position of probationers and the employer's right to terminate services without an enquiry were clarified by the court.

1. The services of the petitioner who was a Lecturer in the Sree Narayana College, Cannanore, were terminated with effect from 3112 1963 on three months' notice by an order dated 20 91963. This order is Ext. P-3 and was passed by the third respondent to this writ application, the Convener, Managing Committee, Sree Narayana College, Cannanore; and it is impugned, in this writ application.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the Sree Narayana College in 1960 and it is undisputed that by order, Ext. P-2, she has been serving as a probationer from 161961 for one year. This period of probation must have expired on 161962. No order confirming the petitioner as a permanent Lecturer in the College has been passed and, of course, no order terminating her services was passed either. In these circumstances, the position of the petitioner must be that of a probationer. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the cases of similar employees in more than one case. It is enough to refer to the decision in Accountant General P. P. v. B. P. Bhatnagar (Civil Appeal No. 548 of 1962) wherein Their Lordships said:

" When a first appointment or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the said period without any specific order of confirmation, he continues as a probationer only and acquires no substantive right to hold the post. If the order of appointment itself states that at the end of the period of probation, the appointee will stand confirmed in the absence of any order to the contrary, the appointee will acquire a substantive right to the post even without an order of confirmation which is necessary to give him such a right. When after the period of probation, an appointee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation the only possible view to take is that by implication the period of probation has been extended. Much can be said for the view that it is desirable in such cases that an express order extending the period of probation should be made, as otherwise the appointed person may be under a misapprehension about the exact position. There is however no basis for the conclusion that from the mere fact that an appointee is allowed to continue after the end of the period of probation stated is his order, he should be deemed to have been confirmed."

3. The order of appointment in this case (the relevant one being Ext. P-2) has not stated that at the end of the period mentioned therein, the petitioner will stand confirmed. So the contention of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit in support of the Original Petition that the petitioner had become a permanent employee cannot stand. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had been permitted to receive increments and also been allowed to contribute to the Provident Fund. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the University of Kerala, by its Registrar, has pointed out in Para.7 that the period of probation would count for increments and that teachers appointed on probation are also eligible to contribute to the Provident Fund. Nothing, therefore, turns on these facts and I proceed to deal with this case on the basis that the petitioner was a probationer at the time of the passing of the order Ext. P-3.

4. Before dealing with the questions argued in this case, I must also refer to the reliefs claimed and consider what reliefs, if at all, can be granted and against which respondents. As a result of the elucidation at the time of arguments, it is accepted on all hands that S.34 and 35 of the Kerala University Act, 1957, and the First Statutes passed under S.25 of that Act have no application. This Court had occasion to consider whether S.34 and/or S.35 of the Act would be attracted in Sasikumaran Nair v. University of Kerala (O. P. No. 1777 of 1962). In the absence of a written contract as envisaged in S.34 of the Act, Vaidialingam J. ca