IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc.Nos.6520-21 of 2011 & Civil Writ Petition No.7711 of 2011 Dr.Tapan K. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, New Delhi and others Present: Mr.N.P.Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Civil Misc.No.6521 of 2011 Documents taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No.7711 of 2011 The petitioner is a Probationist, whose services have been terminated being un-satisfactory. The main grievance raised by the counsel in the writ petition is that this order has not been passed by the competent authority. The petitioner has placed on record the rules, which would show that the Board of Governors was the appointing authority of the petitioner. The impugned order clearly indicates and recites that Board of Governors had taken a decision not to confirm the services of the petitioner while he was under probation. The petitioner had earlier approached this court and as per the directions of this court, the petitioner was to be treated as a probationist till his services were confirmed by the competent authority. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the competent authority, ie., the Board of Governors never met and the decision not to confirm the services of the petitioner was taken. Accordingly, the counsel contends that the competent authority has not taken the decision. Except for so asserting in the petition and on the basis of document that Chairman of the Board was out of country, there is no material to show that the Board had not met. The factual controversy whether the Board had actually met Civil Writ Petition No.7711 of 2011 : 2 : and taken this decision and whether Board would be validly constituted even if the Chairman was absent has not been properly averred in the petition. Even otherwise, it would not be fair for this court to go into factual controversy whether the Board had actually met when the order clearly indicates that the impugned order was passed by Board of Governors. If the petitioner has some contrary evidence, he should lead the same before an appropriate forum, where the factual issues can really be gone into. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to his alternative remedy where these issues can be really gone into. Not a fit case for invoking writ jurisdiction, especially so when the services of the petitioner as probationist have not been confirmed. With the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed. May 10, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE