THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1933 OF 2008 DATED DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Smt.D.Sujatha … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Office of the Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 20 and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1933 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), challenges its proceedings dated 03.01.2006 which stood confirmed in appeal under order dated 26.12.2007. The petitioner entered the service of the APSRTC as an Accounts Officer in January, 1997. She was promoted as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer under proceedings dated 31.08.2004 and put on probation. As per Regulation 20 of the APSRTC Recruitment Regulations, 1966 she had to complete one year for declaration of her probation. Regulation 21(4) of the said Regulations prescribes that in the event of necessity arising for extending the probation, it had to be done before the expiry of the period of probation, duly putting the incumbent on notice as to the lapses which required such extension. However, in the present case, it was only under proceedings dated 03.01.2006, well after the completion of the one year probation period, that the APSRTC informed the petitioner that her probation was extended by a period of six months due to her unsatisfactory performance. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal which was rejected under order dated 26.12.2007. In its first counter affidavit, the APSRTC stated that the extension of probation would have no impact on the petitioner’s future promotions and that it would have no effect on her seniority. It further stated that the same would not be treated as a punishment in terms of its Regulations. Clarifying this position further, the APSRTC filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the declaration of the petitioner’s probation would have the effect of her being promoted from the initial date on which she assumed higher responsibility and that the said date would be taken into consideration for all purposes. It reiterated that the extension of probation for a period of six months would have no impact on her future promotions, would not affect her seniority and would not be treated as a punishment. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in CHAITANYA PRAKASH v. H.OMKARAPPA[1], the facts of each case would determine as to whether a label of ‘unsatisfactory performance’ would be stigmatic or not. In the present case, as the APSRTC did not choose to abide by its own Regulations with regard to extension of probation within the stipulated period and in the light of its unequivocal stand in the counter affidavits, it is clear that the remark of ‘unsatisfactory performance’ in the proceedings dated 03.01.2006 would have no stigmatic effect. The same would also not be a hindrance to the petitioner’s career interests. The stand of the APSRTC is therefore taken on record. In the light thereof, the apprehensions voiced by the petitioner in the present case are without basis. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ DECEMBER, 2010. VGSR [1] (2010) 2 SCC 623