Termination of probation for academic appointee found vitiated by mala fide, but writ petition dismissed

Termination of probation was issued by the employer after considering specified materials; the decision rested on the employer's subjective satisfaction regarding confirmation. The court found that complaints and related proceedings were vitiated by mala fide and extraneous considerations, and noted absence of a departmental enquiry and reference to an Internal Complaints Committee enquiry. The court acknowledged the general non-interference principle where employer satisfaction is subjective, but also recorded that mala fide findings were established; notwithstanding those findings the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner's probationary service (order of termination simplicitor) on the ground of not being suitable for confirmation, challenged on grounds of mala fide, non-consideration of his explanation and on the basis of complaints by students, is legally sustainable.

Analysis: The decision under challenge is a probationary termination where the employer declined to confirm the probationer and terminated probation. The legal framework recognises that termination of a probationer may be effected for unsatisfactory performance without a formal departmental enquiry, and that the employer's subjective satisfaction about suitability for confirmation is relevant. The material before the Court included complaints by students, an inquiry report finding the allegations substantiated, and the petitioner's explanation. The administrative records demonstrate that the inquiry material and the petitioner's response were part of the decision-making material. Allegations of mala fide and extraneous considerations must be substantiated by clear material to justify judicial interference with the employer's subjective satisfaction; mere assertion of enmity or non-consideration is insufficient. Applying these principles to the facts, the impugned termination was based on substantiated complaints and other materials; the petitioner did not establish that the process was vitiated by mala fide or that his explanation was ignored in a manner that would invalidate the decision.

Conclusion: The challenge to the probationary termination is rejected and the termination order is upheld against the petitioner.

---