Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. - (1.) A short but interesting question in regard to the interpretation of clauses 17 and 17A and 18 of the State Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations falls for determination in this writ petition,
(2.) A brief reference to facts is however relevant at this juncture. The petitioner was selected for appointment as a Deputy Director of Operations of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs. 1600 60-1900/- together with other allowances as admissible under the Rules of the Corporation. The letter of appointment dated 24th August 1982 inter-alia contained : "2. You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of your joining and your confirmation to the said post shall depend on your satisfactory performance during the period of probation and on your being found suitable for the post in all respects. The period of probation may, at the discretion of the authority, be terminated or extend, should it be found to be necessary. 3. During the period of probation your services may be terminated on 48 hours notice in terms of Regulations of the Corporation without assigning any reason whatsoever. 4. You shall be governed by the Leave Rules and Service Regulations of this Corporation as are in force and as may be in force from time to time." Subsequently, the petitioner joined the post as noted above on 15th November 1982 and continued to work in the same post till 9th June 1984, when the petitioner was asked not to attend the office any longer and thereafter a formal letter of termination dated 8th June 1984 was sent to the petitioner on 13th June 1984. In the meantime, however, the petitioner was granted an increment immediately after the expiry of one year period and the petitioner was enjoying a higher salary than was offered to him at the initial stage. On 19th May 1984 however the petitioner was served with an office order No. 566-S/CH dated 19-5-84 informing the petitioner that the probation period of the petitioner has been extended till 14th November 1984, i.e. upto two years from the date of joining It is this letter of 19th May 1984 as well as subsequent order of termination which are under challenge.
(3.) Mr. Mitter appearing in support of the petitioner strongly contended that the attempted de-conformation by the letter dated 19th May 1984 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and the same is contrary to all known principles of law. Mr. Banerji however, appearing for the Calcutta State Transport Corporation contended that the Corporation is within its right to extend the probationary period and also within its right to terminate the services within the period of such probation.;