ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) Mr. Sengupta, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the University. He submits, section 29 of Presidency University Act, 2010 has to be read as a whole. Second proviso to sub-section (4) cannot be read in isolation. The sub-sections in the section proceed as first providing for appointment under sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) provides for period of probation and its extension. Sub-section (3) gives authority to the University to discharge probationer if performance is not considered satisfactory. It is thereafter that subsection (4) provides for completion of period of probation and its consequences. First proviso under sub-section (4) is regarding deemed confirmation and second, extension of period of probation as desired by a teacher or an officer or an employee. He submits in elaboration, there are instances where a teacher on probation is on lien. Such probationer might desire extension of probation to consider incumbent's position regarding position lien. Such a probationer would desire extension of period of probation rather than completion of it and confirmation.
(2.) He then deals with submissions of law made on behalf of petitioner. Referring to Dr. M/s. Sumati P. Shere (supra) he relies on paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 with special emphasis on paragraph 5. He submits, declaration of law is that in relationship of master and servant there is moral obligation to act fairly. An informal, if not, formal give and take, on the assessment of work of the employee should be there. He submits, interaction between members of faculty in the University is informal rather than exchanging letters between themselves. He also relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Pradip Kumar v. Union of India reported in (2012) 13 SCC 182. This is a judgment included in compilation handed up on behalf of petitioner. He relies on paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 12 and 13. He submits, controversy in that proceeding was limited to interpretation of rules 8 and 9 (2) of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service), Rules 1987. He points out from the judgment, respondent had been given annual increments and Supreme Court found order of termination was prompted by a compliant made by members of the Bar and not regarding assessment of his performance.
(3.) He next relies on judgment of learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Satish Kumar Jind Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in 1994 (1) S.L.R. 406, to paragraph 6. Case being dealt with was found to be distinguishable on facts against application of Dr. M/s. Sumati P. Shere (supra). Learned Judge found petitioner had worked for about six months. No annual confidential report regarding his performance could have been recorded. In such a situation occasion for conveying any adverse remarks etc. could not have arisen. Those were the distinguishing features.;