Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1208 - HC - Indian LawsRejection of Appointment as Executive Officer - the Appellant's performance was not found satisfactory, the training period could be extended by a period not exceeding one year - deemed confirmation - terms and conditions of the appointment letter - Held that:- Clause 3 of the offer of engagement, contents whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, provides for extension of the training period. In terms of Clause 9 of the said letter, the trainee is entitled for consideration for the position of “Executive Officer”. This consideration is subject to review of performance and conduct of the trainee. It evidently means that upon completion of the training period of one year or the extended term of training, the trainee does not have an automatic right for being appointed on the post of Executive Officer. In the present case, on completion of the extended period of training, the Appellant submitted his appraisal form and was called for a personal interaction with the Council Members. On evaluation of his performance, his candidature was not found adequate and appropriate for the post of Executive Officer, he was informed that the Respondents were willing to offer him the post of Assistant (Grade-I) pay scale (Rs. 5500-175-9000/-). The learned Single Judge has also inter alia held that on completion of the training, the Appellant was only entitled for consideration for the post of Executive Officer. Respondents did not find him suitable for the said post and the subjective assessment is beyond the scope of judicial review as a Court cannot sit an appeal over the decision of the Management viz-a-viz suitability of the candidature of an employee. The learned Single Judge has also carefully examined the judgments relied upon by the Appellant and has held that the same to be inapplicable to the facts of the present case - There is no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Appeal dismissed.
|