TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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. - LPA NO. 632 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2019 - MR S. MURALIDHAR AND MR SANJEEV NARULA, JJ. For The Appellant : MR Deo Prakash Sharma and Manoj Yadav, Advocates For The Respondent : Mr . Rakesh Agarwal, Advocates ORDER Sanjeev Narula, J. The present appeal u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory, you will be considered for the position of Executive Officer in the pay scale of ₹ 8500-275-13725 with total monthly emoluments of about ₹ 27,000/- including allowances presently offered by the Institute. In the absence of any communication in this regard on or before the date of expiry of the said training period, it shall be presumed that your engagements stands terminated automatically (on the expiry of one year from the date of joining or any extended period). 3. Pursuant to the afore-noted letter of engagement, the Appellant joined the office of the Respondents on 4th April 2008 and continued to work as a Management Trainee . Appellant's performance was reviewed by the Selection Committee on 3rd August 2010 and after evaluating all the relevant factors, the Committee decided to offer him the post of Assistant (Grade- I) in pay scale of ₹ 5500-175-9000/-. The Appellant was not satisfied with the offer and did not accept the same and continued to work as a Management Trainee. Later in the year 2014, he filed the W.P.(C) 5670/2014 before this Court seeking directions for appointment as Executive Officer in terms of the offer of engagement date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs, and (vi) Any other appropriate writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be kindly be passed favour of the petitioners. 5. The writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge. Submissions 6. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the Appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge overlooked the appraisal report of 2009 wherein it was categorically stated that Appellant is fit for absorption. He further emphasized that the appraisal report of 2010 was also in his favour as it also mentioned that The Appellant may be considered for the post of Executive Officer. He also argued that the learned Single Judge wrongly observed that there was no bias and discrimination against the Appellant, ignoring specific allegations qua discrimination made in the pleadings and submissions during arguments. He further urged that performance of the Appellant was satisfactory and Respondents ought to have offered him the post of Executive Officer. In this regard, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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/-). This fact is not disputed by the Appellant. The Appellant declined the offer and continued to work as Management Trainee without demur, till 23rd August 2014, when he approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) bearing No. 5670/2014 impugning the action of the Respondents in not giving him the post of an Executive Officer. Thus, it manifestly emerges that for four years, the Appellant continued as a Management Trainee, without any cavil. In fact the Appellant was prompted to file the petition only when the Respondents reminded him that they have not received any consent from the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in several judgments has held that the burden of proving mala fide is very heavy on the person who alleges the same and though allegations of mala fides are made easily, however the gravity of such allegation demands credible evidence. Mere suspicion cannot substitute evidence. In the present case, we do find any material on record which can even remotely suggest that the decision of the Council of Members was mala fide. 11. The contention of the Appellant that the terms of engagement indicate deemed confirmation after the expiry of extended training period is also untenable. In the facts of the present case, the Appellant cannot urge his plea of deemed confirmation, solely for the reason that after the expiry of extended training period, he was offered the post of Assistant (Grade-I). The Appellant elected not to accept such an offer and therefore it is not a case that the Respondents continued his training period or to say the probation period without confirming him. Having chosen not to accept the offer, the plea of deemed confirmation is not applicable. The Appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in Jai Prakash (supra) and Rajinder Singh Chauhan (supra) on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, was whether termination of services of the Petitioner on completion of the extended period of probation was justified or not? It is noteworthy that in the present case, the Appellant's services were not terminated rather he was offered to join as an Assistant (Grade-I) on completion of his probation period as per his qualifications. The law on the point of deemed confirmation is no longer res integra. Where a person is appointed as a probationer in any post and a period of probation is specified, it does not follow that at the end of the said specified period of probation he obtains confirmation automatically even if no order is passed in that behalf. Unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that confirmation would automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or there is a specific service rule to that effect, the expiration of the probationary period does not necessarily lead to confirmation. At the end of the period of probation an order confirming the officer is required to be passed and if no such order is passed and he is not reverted to his substantive post, the result merely is that he continues in his post as a probationer. It is significant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
