1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2399/2010 Radhey Shyam. vs. LIC of India & Ors. Date : 10.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.HS Sidhu, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Development Officer in LIC of India vide order dated 22.2.2009 as probationer. As per Clause (2) of the said order, the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of twelve months from the date of joining the duty as probationer. This period of probation could have been extended upto 24 months counted from the commencement of the probationary appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner since have completed the period of probation after 12 months from the order dated 12.2.2009, therefore, he came into regular cadre and is governed by the Rules governing the regular employees of LIC. In view of the above, the respondents could not have terminated the service of the petitioner vide order dated 15.2.2010 by invoking clause (10) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009. It is also submitted that 2 some of the persons who have not achieved the requisite targets, have been continued as probationers but the petitioner has been picked up and his service has been terminated and by this way, the petitioner has been discriminated. It is also submitted that the order is stagmatic as it is not an order of termination simplicitor during probation period but his service has been terminated by invoking clause (10) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case. It is settled law that the probationary as such has no right as the person appointed in regular cadre. Non-extension of probationary period itself cannot result into confirmation of the employee in service unless it is provided by the Rules specifically. The plea that confirmation in service because of non-extension of the probationary period of the probationer is not in consonance to the clause (11) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009 which clearly provides that on satisfactory completing the period of probation by such officer and observance and compliance with all the conditions set out in probationary letter dated 12.2.2009, then only an employee can be confirmed in service by the 3 respondent. Unless he gets confirmation by specific order and not by implication, he cannot be regularised as employee of the respondent corporation. The contention of the petitioner that some of the persons' probation period has been extended so that they may achieve the targets under clause (10) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009 but the same treatment has not been given to the petitioner further supports the view taken above and self destructive plea of the petitioner as the petitioner by this plea admits that mere completion of 12 months as probationer cannot result into confirmation in regular service. It also makes clear that each case of probationer is to be examined by the employer to their own satisfaction and, therefore, only in clause (2) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009, it is made clear that the period can be extended not exceeding beyond 24 months. Therefore, it depends upon each person's overall assessment made by the employer whether it is a fit case for extension of probation period or termination of service during probation. All things are required to be examined in the light of sub-clause (1) of clause (11) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009 which requires not only satisfactory completion of the service but also requires observance and compliance with all the conditions set out in probationary letter 4 dated 12.2.2009 and very many things referred in this letter itself. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is stigmatic, is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is not correct because of the reason that in the order dated 15.2.2010, it is clearly mentioned that “termination of your service during probation period”. Then it has been stated that it has been decided to terminate your service as per para (10) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009 with immediate effect i.e. 15.2.2010. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that an incumbent is appointed on probation period so that employee may assess his working. Clause (10) of probationary letter dated 12.2.2009 clearly demonstrates that it deals with the working. The petitioner has not been held guilty for any misconduct or violation of any condition that he has not done the things which he should have done which may caste stigma upon him. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya