JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ application questions the legality of the order in Annexure-3 passed by oppo¬site party no.1 terminating his service by order dated 1.7.2002 with immediate effect.

2. The petitioner, who has done Masters in Labour and Social Welfare, had worked in different places in different capacities and in pursuance of an advertisement issued by oppo¬site parties 1 and 2 for filling up of the post of Deputy General Manager (HRD), he submitted his application and was selected by the selection committee for such appointment. By order dated 17.4.1999 (Annexure-1), he was appointed as Deputy General Manager (HRD). He joined the post in the year 1999 and continued as such till the order in Annexure-3 terminating his service was passed on 1.7.2002 in terms of Clause-8 of the appointment letter issued to him on 17.4.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that under Clause-5 of the appointment letter, the petitioner was required to work on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining which could be extended further, if so considered by the management and that he would continue to remain in proba¬tion till the probation is lifted in writing. Clause-8 of the appointment letter prescribes that the contract employment is terminable at any time without notice and without assigning any reason during the probationary period and after satisfactory completion of the probationary period at the option of either party on three months notice or on payment of compensation equiv¬alent to three months salary in lieu thereof. Though taking re¬course to the said Clause-8, the order of termination has been passed, the petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that he having continued for almost three years on probation, he is to be deemed to be permanent employee and any order of termination without notice would not only violate Clause-8 of the appointment letter but also Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that in terms of Clause-8 of the appointment letter, the employment of the petitioner could be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason during the probation period. Since the petitioner was continuing on probation till the date of termination, no notice was required to be served in terms of the aforesaid Clause. According to opposite parties 1 and 2, Clause-5 of the appoint¬ment letter clearly stipulates that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining which could be extended further, if so considered, by the management and that he would continue on probation till such probation is lifted in writing. Admittedly there being no order lifting the probation, the petitioner continued to be on probation from the date of joining till the order of termination was passed and, therefore in terms of Clause-8, he is not entitled to any notice. Another technical question was raised in course of hearing with regard to maintainability of the writ application. It was con¬tended on behalf of the opposite parties that IDCOL Cement Ltd. has been taken over by the Associate Cement Companies Ltd. during pendency of the writ application and, therefore, no writ can be issued against a Private Company and any order passed in the writ application can not also be implemented by such private company under the terms of disinvestment.

3. As is evident from the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and the sub¬mission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only question that is required to be adjudicated is as to whether the petitioner having continued for more than two years on proba¬tion, can be deemed to be confirmed in service and that as to whether the petitioner was entitled to any notice before the order of termination was passed. The order of appointment is Annexure-1 to the writ app