2000 JTR(SC) 1079
2001 AIR(SCW) 4774 ; 2000 10 SCC 656 ; 2001 SCC(L&S) 743 ; 2000 KHC 4391
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : R.P.Sethi
Financial Commissioner (Revenue)
Versus
Gulab Chand
Case No. : 3819 of 2000
Date of Decision : 7/17/00
Failure to fulfill a mandatory pre-requisite for service regularisation, such as passing a departmental exam, justifies termination. The fact that other employees were erroneously allowed to continue in service without meeting the same requirement does not grant a legal right to an ineligible employee to remain in service.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.311, Art.16
(A) Service Law - Rule 22(1)(c) - Termination of service - Failure to pass mandatory departmental examination - Requirement for completion of probation and regularisation - Termination justified where pre-requisite condition not fulfilled. (Para 4)
(B) Parity in Service - Right to remain in service - Mere fact that other employees, who may or may not be similarly situated, were allowed to continue despite not fulfilling a mandatory condition does not grant a legal right to another employee to remain in service if they have failed to meet the required condition. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee was appointed on a temporary basis with the requirement to pass a departmental examination. Despite an extension of probation and several years of opportunity, the employee failed to pass the examination. A show cause notice was issued, and services were subsequently terminated under Rule 22(1)(c). While a single judge upheld the termination, a Division Bench reversed the decision on the ground that other employees were allowed to continue in service without passing the examination.
Findings of Court:
The termination of services was fully justified as the employee failed to fulfill the pre-requisite of passing the departmental examination, which was essential for the satisfactory completion of the probationary period and subsequent regularisation of service.
Issues: Whether the termination of an employee for failing to pass a mandatory departmental examination is invalid merely because other employees were permitted to continue in service despite similar failures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to meet a mandatory condition for regularisation justifies termination. The fact that other persons were allowed to continue in service does not create a right for an ineligible employee to remain in service.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Parity in Service - Right to remain in service - Mere fact that other employees, who may or may not be similarly situated, were allowed to continue despite not fulfilling a mandatory condition does not grant a legal right to another employee to remain in service if they have failed to meet the required condition. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An employee was appointed on a temporary basis with the requirement to pass a departmental examination. Despite an extension of probation and several years of opportunity, the employee failed to pass the examination. A show cause notice was issued, and services were subsequently terminated under Rule 22(1)(c). While a single judge upheld the termination, a Division Bench reversed the decision on the ground that other employees were allowed to continue in service without passing the examination.
Findings of Court:
The termination of services was fully justified as the employee failed to fulfill the pre-requisite of passing the departmental examination, which was essential for the satisfactory completion of the probationary period and subsequent regularisation of service.
Issues: Whether the termination of an employee for failing to pass a mandatory departmental examination is invalid merely because other employees were permitted to continue in service despite similar failures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to meet a mandatory condition for regularisation justifies termination. The fact that other persons were allowed to continue in service does not create a right for an ineligible employee to remain in service.
Result: Appeal allowed.
B.N.KIRPAL, J.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE appellant had appointed the respondent as a Naib Tehsildar on temporary basis. The respondent was required to pass the departmental examination. Though the appointment was made on 8/10/1973, the respondent could not pass the examination and on 26/04/1976 his probation was extended for a period of one year. When the respondent still did not pass the examination, a show cause notice was issued to him as to why his services should not be terminated.
(3) THIS show cause notice was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition in the High Court. On 9th October, 1996, the single Judge dismissed the writ petition. He came to the conclusion that the respondent herein was granted nine years time to clear the departmental examination but he had failed to do so. The learned single Judge upheld the order of discharge which had been passed against the respondent in terms of Rule 22(1)(c). In appeal, the Division Bench reversed the decision of the single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that some other Naib Tehsildars were allowed to continue even though they had not passed the examination.
(4) WE are surprised, to say the least, at this reasoning of the High Court. The High Court has not found fault with the reasoning of the single Judge, namely, that under Rule 22 the services of the respondent were rightly terminated as he had not fulfilled the condition of passing the departmental examination. Merely because some other persons, who may or may not similarly situate, were allowed to continue to remain in service, would not give the respondent a right to remain in service even though he has not passed the departmental examination which was a pre-requisite for the satisfactory completion of the probationary period and subsequent regularisation of the service. In the absence of the respondent having passed the required examination, the appellant was fully justified in terminating the services of the respondent.
(5) CONSEQUENTLY, the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.