NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS Vs. RAJNI BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.A. No.2023/2010 in T.A.No.1441/2009.

(2.) The respondent No.1 before this Court, Ms Rajni Bajaj was appointed as a Data Entry Operator with the petitioner National Board of Examinations, vide letter dated 04.07.2002 and was put on probation for a period of two years. The appointment letter provided that the period of probation could be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. Vide letter dated 18.05.2005, the probation of respondent No.1 was extended for a period of six months with effect from 28.04.2005. Vide letter dated 05.12.2005, the services of respondent No.1 were terminated by the petitioner on the ground that during probation period, her services were not found to be satisfactory. The termination letter was challenged by the respondent No.1 before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1609/2006, which was later on transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal and was registered T.A.No.1441/2009.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid T.A. was listed before the Tribunal on 11.11.2009 without its knowledge. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.11.2009, set aside the order dated 5.12.2005 and directed the petitioner before this Court to reinstate the respondent No.1 as Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 5.12.2005 with all benefits, within a period of 03 months. W.P.(C) No. 13475/2009 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 11.11.2009. It was contended by the petitioner that when its Counsel appeared before the Tribunal on 4.11.2009, he noted the next date of hearing as 8.12.2009 though in fact, the matter had been adjourned to 11.11.2009. While passing the order dated 11.11.2009 the Tribunal noted that the performance of the respondent No.1 during the period of probation had been found to be good. The Tribunal therefore was of the view that holding her performance to be unsatisfactory, without indicating any reason and without producing any material in this regard, the authority concerned had taken a contradictory stand. It was observed by the Tribunal that extension of the probation and discharging the applicant from service, despite the fact that unsatisfactory performance had not been established from the record of the petitioner (respondent before the Tribunal), was not tenable in law and was an illegality.