Failure to clear mandatory examination after six chances and extended probation justifies termination without further opportunity.

The applicant was selected and appointed as a Divisional Accountant (Probationer) in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna.

His appointment was subject to a two-year probation, extendable in accordance with the applicable terms, and required him to pass the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination after completing one year of service.

The appointment terms stipulated that failure to pass the examination during the original or extended probationary period could result in discharge from service.

The applicant was granted three normal chances and three additional chances, and his probation was extended from two years to four years.

He failed to qualify in all six chances.

He contended that he should have been granted further opportunities and that he could not attend one examination held from 21 to 25 May 2018 because of the death of his brother-in-law on 16 May 2018.

His services were terminated with effect from 21 October 2020.

He challenged the termination under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the order, additional examination opportunities, reinstatement, consequential benefits, and interest.

1. Whether the applicant, having failed to pass the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination in six permitted chances during the original and extended probationary period, had a legal right to obtain further chances before termination.

2. Whether the respondents’ decision to terminate the applicant’s services for failure to qualify the mandatory examination was contrary to the terms of his appointment or applicable rules.

3. Whether the applicant’s absence from one examination on account of the death of his brother-in-law required that the chance be disregarded.

The Tribunal applied the terms of the applicant’s offer and appointment, under which the appointment was purely temporary, governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and liable to termination under Rule 5 without assigning reasons.

The appointment conditions further required the applicant to pass the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination during the probationary period, with three normal chances and, where special circumstances justified it, up to three additional chances at the discretion of the Accountant General; failure to qualify within the prescribed chances could result in removal from service.

The Tribunal also considered Paragraph 6 of Annexure II to the C&AG’s MSO (Admn.) Vol. I, under which a missed chance could, at the Accountant General’s discretion, be ignored where the candidate was unable to appear because of properly certified personal illness.

The Tribunal held that no rule or law conferred a right to further opportunities beyond the six chances already granted.

The applicant accepted the appointment subject to the express requirement of passing the departmental examination and the stipulation that failure during the original or extended probation would make him liable to discharge.

The respondents not only granted the three prescribed normal chances but also exercised discretion in the applicant’s favour by extending probation to four years and granting three additional chances.

Since the applicant nevertheless failed to qualify, the condition for discharge was satisfied.

His claim for additional opportunities was unsupported by any statutory rule or enforceable right.

As to the missed examination, the applicable provision specifically contemplated disregard of a chance in cases of properly certified personal illness; the applicant’s stated reason was the death of his brother-in-law, which did not establish an entitlement under that provision.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the termination.

The termination order dated 21 October 2020 was therefore upheld, and the Original Application seeking quashing of the termination, reinstatement, consequential benefits, interest, and additional chances was dismissed.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.