Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Dr. Subodh Kumar, S/o. Sri Krishan Deo Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The Birla Institute of Technology, through its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 15 of 2020
Decided On : 15-09-2022
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad.
For the Respondents: Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Ms. Tanya Rai, Mr. Md. Asghar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II.
The main legal point established is that an employee working on a temporary basis, whose service is not confirmed and probation period not extended, does not have a right to remain in service as per the institute's regulations.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Condoning Delay - Section 5 - The court condoned the delay of 81 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Birla Institute of Technology and his services were terminated after the probation period without confirmation. The writ petitioner challenged the termination through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioner's service was not confirmed and his probation period was not extended, thus his status was deemed to be temporary as per the institute's regulations.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the institute's regulations regarding the probation period and the status of the employee after completion of the probation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employee working on a temporary basis cannot have a right to remain in service if his service is not required by the employer, as provided in the institute's regulations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the termination based on the employee's temporary status.
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.897 of 2021
This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 81 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 81 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No. 897 of 2021 stands allowed.
L.P.A. No.15 of 2020
5. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.242 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the order dated 15.12.2008 by which the service of the writ petitioner has been dispensed with, has been declined to be interfered with.
6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-
It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the Respondent No.1 for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Applied Chemistry in the Birla Institute of Technology in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13,500/-. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner being eligible in all respects, applied for appointment on the said post.
The interview letter was issued to the petitioner whereupon the Selection Committee decided to appoint the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Department of Applied Chemistry) in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13,500/- vide letter of appointment dated 07.06.2007. However, in the appointment letter, there was a condition that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of one year and would be eligible for confirmation in the post subject to satisfactory completion of the probation period.
Pursuant to the said appointment letter, the petitioner submitted his joining on 11.07.2007 which was accepted and thereafter, his pay was fixed.
Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Deoghar at BIT Mesra, Extension Centre by office order dated 28.03.2008. The petitioner submitted his joining on 10.04.2008 at Deoghar Extension Centre and his joining was accepted by the competent authority at Deoghar.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that he completed successful satisfactory service of one year as Lecturer even though no formal order was issued in this respect and the respondent authorities by memo dated 15.12.2008, terminated the services of the petitioner without even asking a show cause for the petitioner.
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 15.12.2008, has invoked the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.242 of 2009.
The respondents have appeared on being called upon and took the ground that there is no infirmity in the impugned order since the service of the writ petitioner not been confirmed, his service has been treated to be temporary in view of the provision of Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology and by taking recourse, as made available therein, the service of the writ petitioner has been terminated after giving one month’s notice.
The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the nature of appointment as also the provision as contained under Regulation 13(3) of the Birla Institute of Technology, has refused to interfere with the impugned order of termination by dismissing the writ petition, against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred.
7. Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant, has submitted that the order of termination dated 15.12.2008 cannot be construed to be justified decision reason being that there is no communication to the writ petitioner ab
