Judgment

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

Both the writ petitions having involved common question of law and facts, were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7949 of 2014 seeks to challenge the three month's notice of termination from service dated 14.03.2014 under Annexure-7 in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 7(1) of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 (in short "the Rules, 2009"). Similarly in W.P.(C) No. 8501 of 2014, three months notice of termination of service has already been issued to the petitioner on 14.3.2014 under Annexure-10 under Rules, 2009. The petitioners in both the cases assail the notices on the ground that the same are arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, this Court may set aside the same.

3. Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for both the petitioners strenuously urged that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to office order dated 29.01.2009 under Annexure-1 and they will go for a probation period of 12 months initially and at the discretion of the authorities, the said period could be extended and if necessary their services could be terminated. But after completion of probation period, the petitioners services had been confirmed, vide Annexure-2 while they were continuing as Development Officers. The notices of termination of service dated 14.03.2014 had been served giving three months time as per Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 2009. It is stated that such notices are the outcome of non-application of mind and contrary to the provision of law. To substantiate her contention, Ms. Mohapatra has relied upon the judgments of Allahabad High Court in Vivek Anand v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2012 (11) ADJ 508 and Kuldeep Sonkar v. Union of India and others Writ-A No. 18287 of 2013 where the earlier judgment in Vivek Anand Case (supra) has been referred to.

4. Mr. S.P. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 states that the Development Officers having not satisfied the conditions by giving business to the organization, requested for extension of probation for three months to enable them to achieve the target and such extension of probation might be communicated to them. But subsequently, the petitioners were confirmed against the posts they were holding. It is stated that the petitioners having not achieved the minimum target by providing business as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order under Annexure-1 read with Rules, 2009, the impugned notices were given to them under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 2009 terminating their services after expiry of three months period from the date of notice. Several opportunities were given to the petitioners to improve their business, but the petitioners having failed to satisfy the conditions stipulated therein, the impugned notices terminating their services were issued well within the jurisdiction of the authority. Therefore, the action taken having been done in conformity with the provisions of law, the same may not be interfered with by this Court. In addition to the same, it is urged that against the order of termination appeal lies under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 2009. Therefore, without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioners should not have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in K.S. Rasid and Son v. The Income Tax Investigation Commission, etc. AIR 1954 SC 207 and Munna Lal v. State of U.P. and 4 others, and Allahabad High Court in Writ A. No. 23101 of 2014 disposed of on 22.04.2014 wherein Vivek Anand case (supra) was referred in.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the records and perusing the documents, it appears that the petitioners were appointed as Development Officers