IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10436 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:06.12.2011 Mr. Rameshwar Sharma ...Petitioner versus The State of Haryana, through its Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana at Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sonia Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Gourav Mohunta, Advocate, for respondents 2 and 3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The order of termination is effected on 12.01.1988. The only point for consideration is whether the termination effected is violative of the terms & conditions of employment. The petitioner is not present in Court and I have, therefore, examined this case on the basis of records and with the assistance of the respective counsel for the respondents. 2. The order of appointment is made on 26.08.1987 under Civil Writ Petition No.10436 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - which the petitioner has been offered employment as Peon-cum- Chowkidar at the Haryana Welfare Society for Hearing and Speech Handicapped. The appointment order spells out that he shall be on probation for a period of two years and that his service could be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. The order of termination states that his work and conduct had not been found satisfactory during the probation period. The simpliciter order of termination without casting a stigma for termination cannot be a ground for complaint before this Court. It is also sought to be contended that the respondent-Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and there is no State interest involved. I am not prepared to examine the said contention in the absence of definite material relating to the extent of the State interest involved to discount the contention whether the Society is instrumentality of State or not. There is no proposition of law that the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act cannot be an instrumentality of State and amenable to a writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The case has to be fail on the manner of termination of service of a person undergoing a probation in service. The writ petition is dismissed and the impugned order of termination is affirmed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 06.12.2011 sanjeev