BIPINCHANDRA M SHETH Vs. GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
LAWS(GJH)-1983-4-1
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 27,1983

Bipinchandra M Sheth Appellant
VERSUS
GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.D.DESAI - (1.) On 29/12/1979 the petitioner was appointed as Manager and posted in the Appraisal section of the respondent Corporation. The appointment was subject to several conditions one of them being that it was on probation in the first instance for a period of twelve months. By an order made on 10/03/1980 the period of probation was extended upto 11/03/1980 and by another order passed on the same day the petitioners services were terminated with effect from the next day on account of unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner challenged the termination in a writ petition which was rejected by the learned Single Judge at the final hearing. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) In exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 40 of the State Financial Corporation Act 1951 the respondent Corporation has made Regulations called The Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations 1961 Chapter II sec. 2 of the said Regulations deals with Probation Regulation 15 which finds place in the said section reads as under: 15 Period of probation.- (1) An Officer directly recruited to the Corporations service shall be required to be on probation for a period which shall not be less than one year and more than two years as may be fixed at the time of the appointment. (2) Employees not included in sub-regulation (1) of this regulation shall on their first appointment in the Corporations service be required to be on probation for one year.
(3.) Mr. Anand submitted that the last few words of sub-regulation (1) namely as may be fixed at the time of the appointment indicate that the extent or duration of the period of probation can be determined only at the time of appointment and that it cannot be varied subsequently. In other words the contention was that the power with regard to the fixation of period of probation was required to be exercised once and for all at the time of appointment and that there was no power in the appointing authority to extend the period of probation at any subsequent stage. We are unable to agree. On a true and correct interpretation the sub-regulation leaves discretion with the appointing authority to determine the period of probation between the two specified limits. The period cannot be less than one year but it also cannot exceed two years. The occasion for the exercise of power with regard to the fixation of period of probation is when the appointment takes place. This is manifest from the concluding words of the sub-regulation. Those words cannot be read however as providing that the extent or duration of probation must necessarily be determined once and for all on that occasion. The appointing authority may in exercise of the power on that occasion finally determine the extent or duration of probation or it may fix the period of probation initially (such period being not less than one year) and reserve the power to extend the period subsequently but so as not to exceed two years. In the first category of cases the power having been fully and finally exercised on that occasion is exhausted. In the second category the power having been exercised conditionally or provisionally on that occasion is not exhausttion and it may be exercised from time to time thereafter so as to extend the period of probation subject however to the limitation that such exercise must be within the specified period of two years and further that the probation cannot be extended in any case beyond the said outer limit. This being the true meaning and content of the sub-regulation Mr. Anands submission must be rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.