IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13809 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:06.05.2011 Parkash Chand ...Petitioner versus Union of India and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the Union. ---- 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. There is no representation for the petitioner. Counsel for the Union is present. Since the case relates to the year 1990, I proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of the records and with the assistance of the counsel for the Union. 2. The petitioner was a probationer in the service of BSF as an Assistant Commander. He was appointed on 12.05.1989 but the termination was made on 24.07.1990. This was purported to be during his period of probation. The contention in defence was that it was non- stigmatic and the termination took effect simpliciter. Since the motivations for the order are in challenge, the respondents' statement had also filed the copy of the confidential communication sent by the Civil Writ Petition No.13809 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - Director, BSF to the Inspector General (Administration) showed that there were several instances finding him to be unsuitable to make him permanent. I do not think any error could be shown to the order passed by the authority. The challenge through the writ petition is unmerited and the writ petition is, consequently, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.05.2011 sanjeev