K A BAROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-1990-4-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on April 11,1990

K A Barot Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PALACE TEATRE VS. LABOUR COURT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-191] [REFERRED TO]
S N VASUDEVAN VS. MANAGEMENT OF BHARATH FRITZ WERNER [LAWS(KAR)-1999-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
SPICE COMUNICATIONS LTD VS. REETHA BHEEMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2006-12-71] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant in this appeal by special leave was appointed as a Civil Judge of the Junior Division in the Gujarat Judicial Service on 7/03/1969 on probation for a period of two years. His probation was thrice extended on 1/10/1971 for six months; again for six months on 1/04/1972 and for the third time for six months on 1/10/1972. On 13/04/1973 there was an order terminating his serviceswith effect from 30/04/1973. He challenged the order of termination by filing a writ petition before the High court and when the High court dismissed the same, the appeal has been filed by special leave,
(2.)It is the settled view of this court, in the absence of a rule to the contrary, that probation does not transform itself into confirmation unless there is a specific order. It is not the case of the appellant that he was confirmed by any order of the authority. The only contention which is canvassed in support of the appeal before us is the term of the order of appointment which stipulated.
"You will be on probation for a period of. two years from the date on which you take charge of your appointment and during this period your appointment is liable to be terminated without notice. After the period of probation your services are liable to be terminated on one months notice as long as your appointment is temporary.

It should be clearly understood that your appointment at present is purely temporary. "

(3.)Appellants learned counsel contends that the appellant was entitled to a months notice after termination as after 31/03/1973 when the final extension of probation expired, the status of the appellant became temporary and he was entitled to a months notice as stipulated; in its absence the termination was bad in law. He further indicated that the appellant was prepared to go back as a probationer. We have examined all aspects of the matter and particularly the fact that he has been out of employment from 1/05/1973 until now a period of about 17 years.
;


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