- (1.) The Petitioner is appointed as Probationary Development Officer (PDO), in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'the Corporation'), on 17-12-2007. His services were terminated by the Corporation through order dated 18-12-2008, on the ground that he did not meet the stipulated targets, while in probation. He filed W.P. No. 9822 of 2009, challenging the order of termination. The writ petition was disposed of, on 23-12-2009, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for extension of probation, on par with other similarly situated PDOs. On 19-02-2010 the Corporation passed an order, expressing its inability to extend the probation of the Petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) The Petitioner contends that on account of several factors, such as, recession, competition in the market, saturation in the area in which he is working, the prescribed targets could not be achieved, not only by himself, but every PDO in the area. He submits that, out of 11 PDOs working in the area, not one of them reached the targets, but himself and another person by name, A.S. Reddy, are denied for extension of probation. He contends that when the only basis for denial of extension is failure on the part of the PDOs, to reach the targets, there cannot be any further classification among the PDOs, who did not reach the targets. He further contends that the action of the Respondents is ex-facie arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The Respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the order of appointment itself there is a stipulation, to the effect that the officers must be on probation for a period of one year, extendible by one more year, and that if the performance is not satisfactory, the Corporation shall have the right to terminate the probation. It is stated that the performance of the Petitioner was almost dismal, and he cannot compare himself with the other PDOs.;