SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3819 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17929 of 1999). D/d. 17.7.2000.

Financial Commissioner (Revenue) - Appellant

Versus

Gulab Chand and another - Respondents

Constitution of India, Articles 311 and 16 - Equality in Public Employment - Termination during probation - Probationer - Termination of services on account of not passing of departmental examination cannot be held to be improper on the ground that some other employees were allowed to continue - Merely because some other persons who may or may not be similarly situate were allowed to continue their service, probationer cannot get a right to remain in service - If the passing of Departmental examination was a pre-requisite for satisfactory completion of probation and subsequent regularisation of service, the probationer cannot claim to continue without fulfilling that condition.

[Para 4]

ORDER

Special leave granted.

2. The appellant had appointed the respondent as a Naib Tehsildar on temporary basis. The respondent was required to pass the departmental examination. Though the appointment was made on 8th October, 1973, the respondent could not pass the examination and on 26th April, 1976 his probation was extended for a period of one year. When the respondent still did not pass the examination, a show cause notice was issued to him as to why his services should not be terminated.

3. This show cause notice was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High Court. On 9th October, 1996, the single Judge dismissed the writ petition. He came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was granted nine years' time to clear the departmental examination but he had failed to do so. The learned single Judge upheld the order of discharge which had been passed against the respondent in terms of Rule 22(1)(c). In appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decision of the single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that some other Naib Tehsildars were allowed to continue even though they had not passed the examination.

4. We are surprised, to say the least, at this reasoning of the High Court. The High Court has not found fault with the reasoning of the single Judge, namely, that under Rule 22 the services of the respondent were rightly terminated as he had not fulfilled the condition of passing the departmental examination. Merely because some other persons, who may or may not similarly situate, were allowed to continue to remain in service, would not give the respondent a right to remain in service even though he has not passed the departmental examination which was a pre-requisite for the satisfactory completion of the probationary period and subsequent regularisation of the service. In the absence of the respondent having passed the required examination, the appellant was fully justified in terminating the services of the respondent.

5. Consequently, the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.