Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, R. Sakthivel, JJ
H.Anandhi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 115 – Respondent
W.A.No.1569 of 2019 | CMP.No.10776 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Stalin for M/s.Row and Reddy
For the Respondents: Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan Senior Panel Counsel for R1, Mr.Karthick Rajan for R2 to R4, Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan for R5, Ms.R.Ramya for R7
In termination cases involving probationary employees, adherence to natural justice principles requires prior notice, especially when the employee has served satisfactorily for an extended period.
Headnote:(A) Rule 3 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Recruitment Regulations 2005 - Principles of Natural Justice - Writ Appeal challenging termination of employment - Despite deficiencies in qualifications, the employee was treated as a permanent staff for over 8 years - The court emphasized that proper notice should have been provided prior to termination and disregarding established service duration violates natural justice principles. (Paras 3, 10, 16)
(B) Employment Law - Irregular Appointments - The court distinguished between illegal and irregular appointments, concluding that the lengthy service of the appellant warranted protection under irregularity principles. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged her termination as a probationer, citing principles of natural justice due to a lack of notice, while the respondent argued she was not qualified for the position at the time of her appointment.
Findings of Court:
The respondent is directed to validate the appellant's service, acknowledging her irregular appointment and satisfactory performance over several years.
Issues: The adaptive definition of probationary periods and corresponding duties of the employer in recognition of long service.
Ratio Decidendi: Termination without notice in the context of lengthy service has been deemed improper, necessitating consideration of established employee rights and qualifications acquired during service.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed; termination set aside.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)
This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated 22.03.2019 in W.P.No.32296 of 2018.
2. The appellant herein, who was serving as a Costume Assistant- Grade II at Kalakshetra Foundation / the fourth respondent herein, was relieved of her duties by an order dated 20.11.2018, on the ground that her services, as a probationer, were no longer required. When she had challenged the said order of termination in W.P.No.32296 of 2018, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 22.03.2019, predominantly on the ground that she was overaged at the time of appointment, apart from not possessing the requisite educational qualification for the post, and that non issuance of a show cause notice prior to the termination would not cause any prejudice to her. This said order of dismissal is now under challenge before us.
3. The main contention of the appellant is that no prior opportunity was given to her when she was relieved from the services and thus, the termination order is violative of the principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel, though the appellant was initially put on probation for a period of two years commencing from 08.06.2010, the probation period was neither extended, nor was it declared to have completed. On the other hand, all the service benefits were periodically being extended to the appellant, including her dearness allowance and increments under the recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission, thereby treating her as a regular employee. With such grounds, the learned counsel sought for our interference to the order passed in the Writ Petition.
4.1 Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Kalakshetra Foundation / the fourth respondent, would submit that the appellant had continued to be probationer at the time of termination and since, the terms and conditions under Clause (ii) of the appointment order permitted them to terminate her without any notice or reasons, the order cannot be found fault with.
4.2 It is his further submission that as per the recruitment rules of Kalakshetra Foundation, the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Costume Assistant – Grade II was a degree from a recognized University or its equivalent, with the capacity to assist the costume requirements of new productions, experience in tailoring, etc., and the upper age limit was 30 years. Among these essential qualifications, the appellant did not possess her degree at the time of appointment, but had graduated in B.A History and Heritage Management only after her appointment. She was also above 30 years at the time of appointment and therefore, the fourth respondent was justified in dispensing with her services while she was a probationer. According to him, the learned Single Judge had taken note of these disqualifications and in view of the appellant's status as a probationer, had held that no prior show cause notice was required before the termination.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed to the permanent post of Costume Assistant – Grade II through a proper selection process, pursuant to a recruitment notification in the newspapers. Pursuant to her application for the said post, she was called for a personal interview on 07.04.2010 and after being successful in the interview, she was appointed to the permanent post of Costume Assistant – Grade II on 08.06.2010.
6.1 As per Rule 3 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Recruitment Regulations 2005, read with Clause 12 of the Schedule applicable to Rukmini Devi College of Fine Arts, the period of probation for the post of Costume Assistant – Grade II was two years. The essential qualification prescribed thereunder, inter alia, was a degree from a recognized University and the upper age limit was fixed at 30 years.
6.2 Clause 2 of the appointment order dated 08.06.2010 stipulates that the appellant was put on probation for a period of two years from the date of her joining duty, with a condition
