1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.7.98 (Annx. 5), by which petitioner has been discharged from service during the period of probation.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that after holding regular selection for the post of Hostel Superintendent, petitioner was appointed, vide order dated 29.6.96, on probation for a period of one year and he joined the service on 13.7.96. The probation period was further extended for a period of one year, however, petitioner has been discharged vide order dated 11.7.98 as his services were not found satisfactory. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. G.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed as a punishment and is stagmatic and, thus, bad in law.

4. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that there is nothing in the impugned order which can be termed to be stagmatic; it only speaks of warning and counselling which certainly did not cast stigma. It is a case of discharge of probationer simplicitor and the inquiry, as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution or any provis