JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. : The petitioner in this writ application Shri Ajay Kumar Jena seeks to challenge the order of termination of his services dated 3rd June, 1998 under Annexure-7 issued by the opp. party from the post of Master (Computer) in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar. The said order of termination impugned herein is as follows:

“TERMINATION OF SERVICE ON PROBATION AS MASTER (COMPUTER)

1. You were appointed as Master (Computer) on probation with effect from 12 July, 96 vide appointment order No.SSB/ 1008/PC/ 1221 dated 04 Jul. 96.

2. Your overall performance was not found satisfactory in spite of counselling as well as grant of extension of the probation periods upto 11 July. 98. It is regretted that in spite of sever¬al opportunities, extended, you have failed to show any improve¬ment in your overall performance.

3. You are therefore, informed that you services will stand terminated with effect from 11 July 98 (AN) vide Sainik Schools Society Rule No.7.08 of 1997. One months notice as per rules is given from 12 June 98 to 11 July 98 and you will be paid your salary upto & including 11 July 98.

4. You are further informed that you will hand over the com¬plete charge of your duty & documents placed under your charge to Shri HS Das, Asst. Master latest by 30 Jun 98.

5. You are also required to complete the attached clearance and submit in duplicate to the Registrar latest by 08 Jul 98 for further action.

6. Please acknowledge.

Sd/ - V.K. Bhargava

Lt Col.

Principal”

2. The petitioner had obtained Degree in M.Sc. (Math) and P.G. Diploma in Computer Science and while working as a Technical Assistant applied for the post of Master (Computer Education) at the Sainik School, Bhubaneswar, and stood first amongst thirty-five candidates and was selected in the written test conducted by the opp. Party, pursuant to which, he was appointed on probation for one year, extendable up to two years vide letter of appoint¬ment under Annexure-2 and he joined the said post on 12.7.1996.

It is further submitted that his one year of probation came to an end on 11.7.1997 and his performance during the said period was highly satisfactory. The school achieved cent per cent suc¬cessful result in Computer Science during the academic year 1996-97.

While the petitioner was the only teacher in the subject of Computer Science, the academic result again for the following year, i.e., 1997-98 was also cent per cent success. Annexures-5 and 6 dated 1.5.1997 and 26.4.1998 respectively indicate that he was the only teacher in Computer Science and he had adequately and satisfactorily completed his period of probation.

In this respect, Mr G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the yardstick for performance of a teacher has to be judged from the result in the examination of the students and the petitioner being the only computer teacher and the school had achieved 100 % successful result in Computer Science during the period, no justification whatsoever existed for the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground of “lack of performance”.

The petitioner relied upon Annexure-4 issued’ by Cdr. M.V. Vasudevan, who was the Principal of Sainik School during the academic year 1996-97, recording that the petitioner had per¬formed his duty adequately.

3. Mr. Dora in his usual fairness accepts the principle of law that an employee may be discharged from service during the probation period if his performance is not satisfactory, but from the facts as narrated above he submits that it would be clear that the petitioner’s performance having been more than satisfac¬tory not only during the first year but also in the second year, the order of termination of his services must be held to be baseless and quashed.

4. Mr Bijan Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opp. Party-Sainik School, submitted that during the period of probation of the petitioner there were three Princi¬pals, namely, Commander Mr. Vas