Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
K.V. KRISHNAMANI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
LALIT KALA ACADEMY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal arises out of the order of the Delhi High
Court in Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1990 made on April 30,
1991. The appellant was appointed initially on ad hoc basis
on March, 3, 1987 and thereafter with a view to regularises
his services, he was put on probation. During probation, his
services having been found to be not satisfactory, were
terminated by proceedings date December 1, 1989. The
appellant came to challenge the same by filling writ
petition in November 1990 which was dismissed by the High
Court the this appeal by special leave.
It is contended by the appellant that since the
averments made in the counter would constitute foundation
for dismissal for misconduct, an enquiry in this behalf was
required to be made. On the other hand, it is contended by
the respondent that during the probation the appellant did
not acquire any right to the post. If on being found
suitable he was regularised, only then he would have
acquired the right to continue in the post. During
probation, it was found that his services were not
satisfactory and reasons were given in support thereof. Thus
they do not constitute foundation but motive to terminate
the services. We find force in the contention of the
respondent. They have explained that the driving of the
staff car was not satisfactory and that, therefore, they
have terminated the services of the appellant during
probation. They very object of the probation is to test the
suitability and if the appointed authority finds that the
candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to
terminate the services of the employee. Under these
circumstances, it cannot but be held that the reasons
mentioned constitute motive and not foundation for
termination of service. Therefore, we hold that the High
Court has not committed any error of law.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.