- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 23.11.1998 (Annexure P-15), whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with during the probation period, consequent to recording of adverse remarks in the annual confidential report for the years 1997-98 by the then Administrative Judge. The petitioner joined as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 15th February, 1996. He was granted satisfactory report for the year 1996-97, but in the year 1997-98, the then Administrative Judge has recorded the following remarks:
(2.) The said remarks along with inspection note in respect of writing of judgments or as a matter of fact non-writing of the judgments was also communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has made representation Annexure P-7 to the then Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge rejected the representation so submitted by the petitioner and information to this effect was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 07.10.1998 (Annexure P-12). The petitioner submitted another representation (Annexure P-14) as an appeal to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice,. The said representation was again declined on 12.01.1999 (Annexure P-14/A). Since the probation period was not considered to be satisfactory, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the State Government on 23.11.1998 vide order dated 23.11.1998 (Annexure P-15).
(3.) In the written statement, it has been pointed out that the report for the year 1996-97 was 'Satisfactory-B', whereas, in the annual confidential report for the year 1997-98 upto 19.12.1997 in column No. 3 i.e. 'Are his judgments & orders well written and clearly expressed' the remark was 'Needs improvement'. The Administrative Judge has also recorded an inspection note for the period 19.12.1997 to 31.03.1998 apart from the remarks reproduced above. Such remarks led to dispensation of service of petitioner during the probation period. Written statement also discloses the note given by the then Administrative Judge, regarding the disposal of cases by the petitioner during six months preceding his transfer while considering the representation filed. It has been found that disposal was mostly below the minimum prescribed norms. It finds mention that on 04.05.1998, he has pronounced an order without dictating and even when the Bar had struck work.;