2019 (3) TMI 1208 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of Appointment as Executive Officer - the Appellant s performance was not found satisfactory, the training period could be extended by a period not exceeding one year - deemed confirmation - terms and conditions of the appointment letter - Held that - Clause 3 of the offer of engagement, contents whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, provides for extension of the training period. In terms of Clause 9 of the said letter, the trainee is entitled for consideration for the position of Executive Officer . This consideration is subject to review of performance and conduct of the trainee. It evidently means that upon completion of the training period of one year or the extended term of training, the trainee does not have an automatic right for being appointed on the post of Executive Officer. In the present case, on completion of the extended period of training, the Appellant submitted his appraisal form and was called for a personal interaction with the Council Members. On evaluation of his performance, his candidature was not found adequate and appropriate for the post of Executive Officer, he was informed that the Respondents were willing to offer him the post of Assistant (Grade-I) pay scale (Rs. 5500-175-9000/-). The learned Single Judge has also inter alia held that on completion of the training, the Appellant was only entitled for consideration for the post of Executive Officer. Respondents did not find him suitable for the said post and the subjective assessment is beyond the scope of judicial review as a Court cannot sit an appeal over the decision of the Management viz-a-viz suitability of the candidature of an employee. The learned Single Judge has also carefully examined the judgments relied upon by the Appellant and has held that the same to be inapplicable to the facts of the present case - There is no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Appellant's plea for appointment as Executive Officer.
2. Consideration of performance reviews and appraisal reports.
3. Allegations of bias and discrimination.
4. Applicability of "deemed confirmation" in employment terms.
5. Validity of fresh interaction/interview by Respondents.
6. Judicial review of suitability assessments by Selection Committees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Appellant's Plea for Appointment as Executive Officer:
The appeal challenges the judgment dated 10th August 2017, which dismissed the Appellant's writ petition for appointment as Executive Officer. The Appellant argued that he was entitled to the position based on his performance and the terms of his engagement letter dated 7th March 2008. However, the Respondents, after evaluating his performance, found him unsuitable for the post and instead offered him the position of Assistant (Grade-I).

2. Consideration of Performance Reviews and Appraisal Reports:
The Appellant contended that his appraisal reports from 2009 and 2010 indicated he was fit for absorption as Executive Officer. However, the court noted that the final decision was based on a comprehensive review, including a personal interaction in 2015, where the Appellant was found unsuitable for the Executive Officer position. The court emphasized that the Appellant did not have an automatic right to the post, as the engagement terms required satisfactory performance and conduct reviews.

3. Allegations of Bias and Discrimination:
The Appellant alleged bias and discrimination in the Respondents' decision-making process. The court found these allegations unsubstantiated, noting that the Appellant did not provide credible evidence to support claims of mala fide actions by the Selection Committee. The court reiterated that allegations of mala fide require positive evidence and cannot be based on mere suspicion or inference.

4. Applicability of "Deemed Confirmation" in Employment Terms:
The Appellant argued that the terms of his engagement implied deemed confirmation after the extended training period. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that the engagement letter did not provide for automatic confirmation. The court distinguished the Appellant's case from precedents like Jai Prakash and Rajinder Singh Chauhan, noting that those cases involved specific service rules or terms indicating automatic confirmation, which were absent in the Appellant's case.

5. Validity of Fresh Interaction/Interview by Respondents:
The Appellant contended that the Respondents were not permitted to hold a fresh interaction/interview as directed by the court in W.P.(C) 5670/2014. The court found this contention without merit, stating that the fresh interaction was necessary to comply with the court's direction to pass a speaking order on the Appellant's representation. The Respondents' decision to conduct another interaction was deemed proper and necessary for a meaningful assessment of the Appellant's suitability.

6. Judicial Review of Suitability Assessments by Selection Committees:
The court upheld the principle that suitability assessments for a particular post are within the expertise of duly constituted Selection Committees and can only be interfered with on limited grounds, such as illegality, procedural irregularity, or mala fide actions. The court found no such grounds in the Appellant's case and emphasized that the Appellant's continued work as a Management Trainee without accepting the offer of Assistant (Grade-I) did not entitle him to the post of Executive Officer by default.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Appellant was not entitled to the position of Executive Officer based on the terms of his engagement and the assessments of his performance. The court also upheld the Respondents' decision to offer the Appellant the position of Assistant (Grade-I) and found no basis for the allegations of bias, discrimination, or deemed confirmation. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was found to be without infirmity and beyond the scope of judicial review regarding the suitability assessment.

← Previous Next →