The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a probationary employee's services can be justified based on unsatisfactory performance during the probationary period. Additionally, the court emphasized the validity of the petitioner's request for repatriation to the substantive post of Assistant.

Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this writ petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure-VIII), whereby his services from the post of Development Officer Grade I have been terminated.

2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant on temporary basis vide order dated 27.05.1975 and was later on appointed as Assistant on probation vide order dated 28.05.1976 (Annexure II) and after completion of his satisfactory probationary period, he was confirmed on the post vide order dated 28.01.1977 (Annexure III) w.e.f. 012.1976. While he was holding substantive post of Assistant in respondent Insurance Company, which is statutory authority and subsidiary of General Insurance

Company of India, petitioner participated in process of selection for marketing training (development officer) in pursuance to advertisement published in Rajasthan Patrika daily of 21.09.1987 issued by respondent Company and after going through process of selection, he was appointed as Development Officer Grade I in whole time employment on probation initially for two years vide order dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V) on terms and conditions referred to therein - according to which conversion to the cadre of Development Officer will be effective from actual date, he reports for duty and will be governed by General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay scales and Service Conditions of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 ("1976 Scheme") as amended from time as far as applicable to probationary officers and will be considered for confirmation on fulfillment of conditions of appointment. His performance during probation was not found satisfactory and one more opportunity was provided to improve, and his probation was extended for one year further vide order dated 22.02.1991 (Annexure VI) which was given effect to from 16.08.1990, and finally because of unsatisfactory performance, services were terminated in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment vide order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure 8). Thereupon through his counsel, petitioner served notice of demand for justice to the respondents Annexure IX and that too was also rejected vide communication dated 212.1991 (Annexure XII). Hence, this petition.

3. Ms Anupma Chaturvedi, Counsel for petitioner urged that procedure as provided in Para 11 of 1976 Scheme as amended vide notification dated 13.02.1987 which postulates about Cost Control ration, was not followed by respondents while taking impugned decision terminating services vide order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure VIII) which provides that if cost ratio for a particular year exceeded the stipulated limits, the non-core allowances payable to development officer in the following performance year shall be reduced to the extent of the amount by which his cost ratio exceeded the stipulated limits during the year under review, and if cost ratio is in excess of stipulated limit for second performance year in succession, a letter of warning can be issued and if it is repeated in third or subsequent performance years in succession, his non-core allowance shall continue to be reduced in the following years to bring his cost ratio within stipulated limits and if there is no non-core allowance to be reduced, he shall be liable to decrements in basic pay and such procedure provided in Para 11(3) of 1976 Scheme before taking decision of terminating petitioners services, has not been followed and its non-compliance vitiates very action of respondents.

4. Ms Chaturvedi further submitted that in view of letter dated 21.06.1989 (Annexure-X) which was applicable only on clerical staff converted as Development Officers, during 2nd year of probation, no targets remains fixed for convertees and they were only to satisfy the cost norms and in view of relaxation granted to converted development officers, services of petitioner could not have been terminated.

5. Ms. Chaturvedi also urged that before taking impugned decision of terminating petitioners services, full opportunity was