Vs. Lalit Kala Academy  INSC 731 (10 May 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 SCC (5) 89 JT 1996 (6) 312 1996 SCALE (5)139
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
appeal arises out of the order of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1990 made on April 30, 1991. The appellant was appointed
initially on ad hoc basis on March 3, 1387
and thereafter with a view to regularise his services, he was put on probation.
During probation, his services having been found to be not satisfactory, were
terminated by proceedings dated December 1,1989. The appellant came to challenge the same by filing writ
petition in November 1990 which was dismissed by the High Court thus this Peal
by special leave.
contended by the appellant that since the averments made in the counter would
constitute foundation for dismissal for misconduct, an enquiry in this behalf
was required to be made. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent
that during the probation the appellant did not acquire any right to the post.
If on being found suitable he was regularised, only then he would have acquired
the right to Continue in the post. During probation, it was found that his
services were not satisfactory and reasons were given in support thereof. Thus
they do not constitute foundation but active to terminate the services. We find
force in the contention of the respondent. They have explained that the driving
of the staff car was not satisfactory and that, therefore, they have terminated
the services of the appellant during probation. The very object of the
probation is to test the suitability and if the appointing authority finds that
the candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to terminate the services
of the employee. Under these circumstances, it cannot but be held that the
reasons mentioned Constituted motive and not foundation for termination of
service. Therefore, we hold that the High Court has not committed any error of
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.