9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Termination of services of an Assistant Professor during probation. 2. Challenge of termination order before the Educational Tribunal. 3. Grounds for termination without holding a departmental inquiry. 4. Validity of termination order based on job proficiency. 5. Determining whether termination during probation was by way of punishment. Analysis: 1. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Professor on probation but had his services terminated within the probationary period. The termination was initially challenged before the Educational Tribunal on the basis that it cast a stigma and required a departmental inquiry. 2. The appellants conceded before the Tribunal, and the initial termination order was set aside. However, a fresh termination order was passed during the probation period, citing unsuitability as the reason. This second order was also challenged, with the Tribunal concluding that it amounted to punishment, leading to the High Court upholding the Tribunal's decision. 3. The Supreme Court emphasized that during probation, the employer has the right to assess the suitability of the appointee for the job. If the services are found unsatisfactory, the employer can terminate the services without specifying a reason. However, if the termination order mentions unsatisfactory performance, it may risk being perceived as casting a stigma. 4. In this case, the second termination order was neutrally worded, and even considering the first order's mention of inadequate job proficiency, it was deemed a valid reason for termination. The Court clarified that citing job performance as a reason for termination does not necessarily imply punishment during probation. 5. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. It was established that termination during probation based on job proficiency assessment is valid, and mentioning performance issues in the termination order does not automatically imply punitive action.
|
