<p> In a verdict that could cause heartburn among young probationers in different jobs, a Bench of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R Dave said the employer can decide on continuing and confirming the service of a recruit depending on his or her performance during the probation.<br /><br />“During the period of probation, the action and activities (or probationers) are generally under scrutiny and on the basis of overall performance, a decision is generally taken as to whether services should be continued and confirmed,” the court said.<br /><br />“While taking a decision in this regard neither any notice is required to be given nor he or she is required to be given any opportunity of hearing,” it added. The court further said a person is placed on probation so as to enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation in the service and also for confirmation in service. <br /><br />“There are various criteria for adjudging suitability of a person to hold the post on permanent basis and by way of confirmation,” it pointed out. <br /><br />The court made its observations while dismissing a petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was appointed as probationer munsif (civil judge), in Jharkhand in 2002 but the High Court by a full court resolution in 2003 did not confirm him saying that his continuation of services was not required in “public interest.”<br /><br />He challenged a consequent order issued by the state government before the High Court but could not get any relief from it. Srivastava then moved the apex court seeking direction to set aside the High Court’s order on the ground he was removed without any inquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice.</p>
<p> In a verdict that could cause heartburn among young probationers in different jobs, a Bench of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R Dave said the employer can decide on continuing and confirming the service of a recruit depending on his or her performance during the probation.<br /><br />“During the period of probation, the action and activities (or probationers) are generally under scrutiny and on the basis of overall performance, a decision is generally taken as to whether services should be continued and confirmed,” the court said.<br /><br />“While taking a decision in this regard neither any notice is required to be given nor he or she is required to be given any opportunity of hearing,” it added. The court further said a person is placed on probation so as to enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation in the service and also for confirmation in service. <br /><br />“There are various criteria for adjudging suitability of a person to hold the post on permanent basis and by way of confirmation,” it pointed out. <br /><br />The court made its observations while dismissing a petition filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was appointed as probationer munsif (civil judge), in Jharkhand in 2002 but the High Court by a full court resolution in 2003 did not confirm him saying that his continuation of services was not required in “public interest.”<br /><br />He challenged a consequent order issued by the state government before the High Court but could not get any relief from it. Srivastava then moved the apex court seeking direction to set aside the High Court’s order on the ground he was removed without any inquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice.</p>
