Dismissed

Balraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Mar 2011LPA/1298/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an order discharging the appellant from service during probation for failing a typing test. The High Court held that terminating unmet employment expectations during probation is lawful and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order discharging the appellant from services during the probation period.

Balraj Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

L.P.A. No. 1298 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 10, 2011

Balraj Singh

....Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶13

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner was discharged from the service during the period of probation. The maximum period of probation provided under Rule 3 (b) (ii) of the Haryana Revenue Department District (Group C) Service Rules, 1988 is three years including extension. It is not disputed that the services were terminated during the period of probation on the ground that the appellant was unable to pass the typing test.

¶14

The only ground raised before us by Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal,

¶15

LPA No. 1298 of 2010 -2-

¶16

learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the appointment letter dated 18.3.1987 (P-1), the appellant was obliged to pass Hindi/English type test at the speed of 25/30 words per minute and in case of his failure he was not to earn any future increment. The argument seems to be that his services could not have been terminated during probation period and according to condition No.4 of the appointment letter, his increment would have remained stayed.

¶17

We are not impressed with the aforementioned submission. The employer was within his right to discharge an employee, who does not come up with the expectation of the employer. The services having been terminated during the period of probation on the ground of work and conduct do not call for any interference. The view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.

¶18

( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE

¶19

( T.P.S. MANN ) March 10, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I

Balraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balraj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yash Pal etc. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Saroj Devi Vs State of Haryana etc.

Subhash Chader & Ors. Vs the St of Pb & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar & Others Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahabir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.