IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. W.J.C. No. 5794 OF 2011 1. Dr. NEELESH KUMAR GAUTAM S/O OF PROF. SUKHDEO CHOUDHARY R/O MOHALLA- SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLONY PS- TATARPUR DISTT- BHAGALPUR AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT MASTER GENERAL SCIENCE, SAINIK SCHOOL, NALANDA 2. MANOJ KUMAR PRASAD S/O RAMCHANDRA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA DAUDPUR KOTHI, PS- BRAHAMPURA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT MASTER (T.G.T) COMPUTOR SCIENCE, SAINIK SCHOOL, NALANDA-------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY. DEFENCE MINISTRY NEW DELHI. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SAINIK SCHOOL, NALANDA 3. HEAD MASTER SAINIK SCHOOL, NALAND------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate For the Union of Inida: Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, CGC ------------- 2 25.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Notice of termination of service of two petitioners as contained in annexures- 1 and 2 is under challenge. As per the assertion made in the writ application the two petitioners were taken up as Assistant Teacher of General Science and Computer Science for appointment in Sainik School Nalanda. The letter of appointment has been annexed as annexures 6 and 7. There is provision in clause 2(b) of the said letter of appointment that the person will be on probation for a period of one year extendable up to a total period of two years and if confirmed thereafter he shall continue to hold office till attaining the age of 60 years. As per Clause 2(c) during the period of probation services are terminable at one month’s notice without assigning any reason. It is true that during the period of probation one month’s notice has been given to two petitioners in terms of - 2 - annexures-1 and 2 and services terminated. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners submits that there is nothing indicated in the notice as to why they will be terminated in the manner like this and that too without giving any opportunity to petitioners or even know the circumstances as to why the period of probation cannot be extended. Reliance is placed on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere vrs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1989 SC 1431, emphasis on paragraph-5. Whatever be the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph- 5 this Court cannot lose sight of series of decisions which have been given by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the right of a probationer for continuance in service or right of an employer to terminate a probationer in terms of the service conditions. Since the petitioners were on probation and if the respondents wanted to bring to an end their services then by giving one month’s notice they have right to do so and by virtue of the settled law on this issue nothing more is to be required to be done because it is within the domain of an employer not to indicate the reasons lest it in any manner be stigmatic against the petitioners This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)