Probationary employees possess statutory protections and cannot be terminated without following prescribed procedures under the governing statute, which mandates documented grounds for unsuitability or misconduct.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date- 16-12-2025.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order no. 138/15 datd 18.09.2015 whereby, as per the petitioner, the petitioner has been relieved of his duties without any prior information; as the same is wholly without jurisdiction; contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Statute and is, therefore, arbitrary and illegal. Consequent upon the quashing of the office order no. 138/15 dated 18/09/15, the petitioner further prays for direction to treat the petitioner in continuous service without any break of service with all admissible and consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Registrar in the Central University of Bihar (now known as the Central University of South Bihar), pursuant to Advertisement No. CUB/Advt./21/2013 dated 16.09.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner duly participated in the selection process, was selected by the competent Selection Committee, and thereafter appointed on a substantive post by order dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure:1), issued with the approval of the Executive Council, under Clause 23(2) of the University Statute, in the pay band of Rs. 15,600–39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/-. The petitioner joined his duties on 26.03.2014 and the joining report was duly notified.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner discharged his duties diligently and to the satisfaction of all concerned authorities. Except for one instance where he was asked to explain his brief absence from office during an examination period—an explanation which was accepted and the leave regularized—there was never any allegation or show cause issued against him at any point of time. It is asserted that during the entire tenure of service, the petitioner maintained an unblemished record and no misconduct was ever attributed to him.

5. It is further stated that, to the petitioner’s shock, he was abruptly served with a letter dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure:3) issued by Respondent No. 4, intimating him that he stood relieved from the post of Deputy Registrar with immediate effect and that his dues would be released. Along with the said letter, Office Order No. 138/15 dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure;4) was enclosed, directing all departments to complete the “No Dues” formalities. Learned counsel emphasizes that prior to issuance of the impugned communication, the petitioner was never afforded any show cause notice, nor was any assessment of his suitability undertaken, nor was any reason disclosed for the termination of his services.

6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an “employee” within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of the Central Universities Act, and his conditions of service, including manner of termination, are governed strictly by the Statute. Under Entry 12(2)(iv) read with Entry 25 of the Second Schedule, the Executive Council alone is the competent appointing and removing authority.