A probationer’s service may be terminated for unsatisfactory performance without disciplinary enquiry or stigma.

G. Ariyamala was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in the appellant-school by appointment order dated 04.03.2019.

She was required to undergo probation for two years, but her probation was never declared.

Before completion of the probationary period, the School Management forwarded a proposal seeking termination of her service on 12.01.2021/18.01.2021, allegedly without communicating the proposal to her.

The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, declined to accept the proposal and directed the School Management to continue recognising Ariyamala’s service.

The Management challenged that direction in W.P.(MD) Nos.14030 and 14031 of 2021, while Ariyamala filed W.P.(MD) No.17027 of 2021 seeking permission to sign the attendance register and implementation of the Chief Educational Officer’s order.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Management’s writ petitions and allowed Ariyamala’s writ petition by common order dated 12.11.2025.

The School Management preferred the present writ appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Whether the service of a teacher appointed on probation could be terminated before completion of the prescribed two-year probationary period and before formal declaration of probation, without conducting disciplinary proceedings?

Whether termination of the probationer’s service on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, without a formal enquiry, attracted the procedural safeguards applicable to termination of a regular employee or constituted a stigma?

The Court applied Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1972, concerning declaration of probation of appointed teachers.

The Court relied on the principle that a probationer has no vested right to continue in service and may be discharged during probation through an innocuous order if the employer finds the probationer unsuitable; such termination ordinarily does not attract the safeguards applicable to punitive termination or Article 311(2) protection.

This principle was drawn from Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Dr. Md. S. Iskender Ali, (1980) 3 SCC 428.

Kunwar Arun Kumar v. U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd., (1997) 2 SCC 191, holding that termination for unsatisfactory performance during probation is not stigmatic.

Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Science v. Devendra Joshi, (2018) 15 SCC 73.

Government of Tamil Nadu v. Prof. Dr. S. Boopathiraj, (2010) 3 MLJ 651.

The Court distinguished authorities concerning regularised employees or disciplinary termination, where notice, charges and enquiry are required.

The Court found that Ariyamala was admittedly only a probationer and that her probation had neither been declared nor completed when the Management sought to terminate her service.

Since the proposed termination occurred during the probationary period and was based on the Management’s assessment that her service was unsatisfactory, the case fell within the established rule permitting discharge of a probationer without a disciplinary enquiry.

The Court held that the requirement of issuing a show-cause notice, framing charges, conducting an enquiry and providing a full opportunity of defence applies to termination of a regular employee for misconduct, not to an innocuous termination of a probationer for unsuitability.

It therefore held that the learned Single Judge had erroneously equated termination during probation with punitive termination of a confirmed employee.

All three writ appeals were allowed; the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) Nos.14030, 14031 and 17027 of 2021 were set aside.

W.P.(MD) Nos.14030 and 14031 of 2021 were allowed, W.P.(MD) No.17027 of 2021 was dismissed, and the termination of Ariyamala’s service was upheld.

No costs were awarded and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.