A probationer has no indefeasible right to permanent employment. An employer may terminate a probationer based on overall performance assessment, provided the termination is a non-stigmatic termination simplicitor. Claims of discriminatory treatment in service matters require specific material particulars to be established by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which their services as Probationary Development Officers have been terminated.

2. Shri Devaang Savla, learned counsel for the petitioners makes the following submissions:-

i) The order of termination is discriminatory as similarly situated Probationary Development Officers have been granted extension of services while denying the benefit to the petitioners.

ii) The order of termination does not reflect due consideration of the relevant factors regarding failure to complete minimum business targets. In brief it is a non speaking order.

iii) The case of the petitioners are covered by the judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Jeevan Lal vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India reported at (2010) 09 AP CK 00030.

3. Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Divya Chaurasia, learned counsel for the respondents resisting the writ petition submits as under:-

i) The petitioners were probationers. No rights had accrued to them during the period of probation.

ii) Though the termination of services of the petitioners were relatable to the conditions of the probation. This is a case of termination simplicitor.

iii) Respondents have placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in M. Venugopal vs. Divisional Manager, LIC of India reported at (1994) AIR SC 1343, Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya and another reported at 2021 (13) SCC 151 and Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand reported at 2011 (4) SCC 447, Parvesh Kumar Gupta vs. Life Insurance Company of India reported at 2002 SCC Online Alld 1699.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioners were appointed as Probationary Development Officers by order dated 30.04.2016. Similar orders of appointment were issued to all petitioners. The appointment order discloses that the initial probation period was of 12 months from the date of joining duty as a probationer. The probationary period was liable to be extended for another 12 months but could not exceed the period of 24 months. The appointment letter postulated service targets to be achieved during probation.

6. The relevant clauses 2 and 10 of the appointment letter are extracted herein under:-

"2. PROBATIONARY PERIOD:

You shall be on probation initially for a period of twelve months from the date of your joining duties as a probationer, but the Corporation may, in its sole discretion, extend your probationary period, provided that the total probationary period including the extended probationary period shall not exceed 24 months counted from the commencement of the probationary appointment. During the probationary period (which includes extended probationary period, if applicable) you shall be liable to be discharged from the services of the Corporation without any notice and without any cause being assigned.

.....

10. MINIMUM BUSINESS:

i) During the probationary period you shall secure through the agents recruited at your instance minimum completed life business of Rs. xxxxxx yielding a Scheduled First Year Premium Income of not less than Rs. 21.10 provided, however, that in case the pay and/or allowance admissible to you, under Clause 1 are increased during the period, the minimum business and the premium income which you should secure shall be increased proportionately.

ii) The mini