- (1.) This writ petition questions the legality of the decision taken by the respondent-Institute through its President to discharge the petitioner from his services who was on probation for two years as Assistant Professor in the Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics.
(2.) Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 24.5.2013 and according to Regulation 46 of the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences First Regulations, 2011, the petitioner's period of probation ought to have been assessed in terms thereof by the competent authority before issuing any order of discharge or even continuing and extending the period of probation. This, according to him, has not been done in the present case and on a mere endorsement of the initial of a signature by the appointing authority, namely, the President of the Institute does not reflect any application of mind, recording of reasons or expressing a satisfaction to discharge the petitioner from service. He further submits that if the veil is lifted the action can also extend to a punitive measure having been undertaken, and in that event a mere order of discharge is a camouflage for dispensing with the services of the petitioner. Even otherwise on merits he contends that the consideration of the documents would clearly reflect, that as a matter of fact, the file has been casually handled and the President of the Institute has not complied with an objective assessment that was required to be made in terms of Regulation 46 by the Appointing Authority himself. He, therefore, submits that the action of dispensing with the services of the petitioner is unlawful, malafide and is not for any bonafide consideration.
(3.) Replying to the said submissions Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents accompanied by Sri Bhasin contend that the entire records indicate a total appraisal of the career of the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid facts that exist on record the appointing authority has taken all due precaution to assess the candidature of the petitioner and denied him extension of his services that is fully justified. The discharge order, therefore, requires no interference.;