A probationary Assistant Professor challenged her termination via a Writ Petition. The High Court held that Article 311 does not apply to probationers and dismissed the petition, finding the termination valid based on committee evaluations without abuse of power.
Writ Petition dismissed; termination order set aside order upholds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-14811-2018
2023:PHHC:131712
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
133 CWP-14811-2018 Date of Decision : 10.10.2023
Dr. Vijay Lakshmi Singh
......... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.B.S.Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
ANJU GOEL 2023.10.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-14811-2018
2023:PHHC:131712
-2-
petitioner. The petitioner joined respondent organisation on 01.09.2017 and impugned order came to be passed on 10.05.2018 i.e. within less than one year from the date of joining. It shows that respondent had passed impugned order without assessing performance of the petitioner in terms of appointment letter. The petitioner lodged complaint against Director and in the said complaint, serious allegations were made. The Director was pressurizing the petitioner to make statement against faculty colleague who came to be terminated on 03.04.2018. The Director had threatened the petitioner to spoil her carrier. The petitioner did not surrender, thus, she came to be terminated vide order dated 10.05.2018.
CWP-14811-2018
2023:PHHC:131712
-3-
Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011, a committee was constituted on the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner joined the proceedings and committee prepared its report which was placed before the Faculty Development & Evaluation Committee. In view of recommendation of Faculty Development & Evaluation Committee, the petitioner was terminated by Director.
CWP-14811-2018
2023:PHHC:131712
-4-
mark. The said Committee after discussion and deliberation unanimously decided to recommend termination with immediate effect.
16. It is thus clear that the entire objective of probation is to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer's performance and test his suitability for a particular post. Such an exercise is a necessary part of the process of recruitment, and must
ANJU GOEL 2023.10.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-14811-2018
2023:PHHC:131712
-5-
not be treated lightly. Written tests and interviews are only attempts to predict a candidate's possibility of success at a particular job. The true test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied after the candidate joins and starts working.
17. Such an exercise undoubtedly is subjective, therefore, Respondent 1's contention that confirmation of probationers must be based only on objective material is far-fetched. Although quantitative parameters are ostensibly fair, but they by themselves are imperfect indicators of future performance. Qualitative assessment and a holistic analysis of nonquantifiable factors are indeed necessary. Merely because Respondent 1's ACRs were consistently marked “Good”, it cannot be a ground to bestow him with a right to continue in service.
18. Furthermore, there is a subtle, yet fundamental, difference between termination of a probationer and that of a confirmed employee. Although it is undisputed that the State cannot act arbitrarily in either case, yet there has to be a difference in judicial approach between the two. Whereas in the case of a confirmed employee the scope of judicial interference would be more expansive given the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution or the Service Rules but such may not be true in the case of probationers who are denuded of such protection(s) while working on trial basis.
19. Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by the competent authority if found unsuitable. It is only in a very limited category of cases that such probationers can seek protection under the principles of natural justice, say when they are “removed” in a manner which prejudices their future prospects in alternate fields or casts aspersions on their character or violates their constitutional rights. In such cases of “stigmatic” removal only that a reasonable opportunity of hearing is sine qua non. Way back in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36] , a Constitution Bench opined that : (AIR p. 49, para 28)
“28. … In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is
ANJU GOEL 2023.10.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-14811-2018
2023:PHHC:131712
-6-
not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with.”
members evaluated performance of the petitioner and thereafter formed an opinion that she needs to be terminated. The respondent has not passed any order which is stigmatic in nature. As the impugned order is not stigmatic and from the perusal of record, it comes out that respondent has followed proper procedure and thereafter1` formed an opinion that petitioner needs to be terminated, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with impugned order of termination.
10.10.2023 anju
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE
| Whether speaking/reasoned | Yes/No |
|---|---|
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
ANJU GOEL 2023.10.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 311 of the Constitution of India applies to the termination of a probationary Assistant Professor.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the employer's decision to terminate a probationer's services without an Article 311 enquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishakha & Ors. vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶24
Vishakha and others vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 · Who else cites this
Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya & Anr.Applied¶38
Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya & Anr., 2020 (2) SCT 423
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of IndiaExplained¶47
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Vijay Lakshmi Singh
Union of India
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
