AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....March 2008. The appointment letter, predicated the training period as one year from the date of joining. It also provided that in case during the training period, the Appellant's performance was not found satisfactory, the training period could be extended by a period not exceeding one year. On successful completion of initial or the extended training period, the Appellant was eligible for being considered for the position of "Executive Officer" in the pay scale of. Rs. 8500-275-13725. This was however subject to conduct and performance review. The relevant clauses of the letter of appointment read as under: "2. Your training period shall be one year from the date of joining. 3. In case, your performance during training period is not found satisfactory, the training period can be extended by a period not exceeding one year. 4. During the first six months of training period you shall be paid a consolidated amount of Rs. 20000/- per month. At the conclusion of initial six months, a preliminary performance appraisal would be made and if your conduct and performance are found to be satisfactory, you would be paid an additional amount of Rs. 2,500/- per mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entation by the Appellant and to pass a speaking order after hearing him. 4. In terms of the aforesaid order, the Appellant was again called for an interaction before two Council Members of the Respondents, on 12th March 2015. Thereafter, on due consideration of his performance during personal interaction, performance reports available on record, the Council Members, submitted their report concluding that Appellant was not fit for the post of Executive Officer. The Executive Committee (one of the Standing Committees of Respondent No. 1) considered the report at its meeting held on 16th March 2015 and agreed with the views of the Council Members and held that Appellant was not fit for the post of Executive Officer and should instead be offered the post of Assistant (Grade-I) w.e.f. 19th August 2010 together with all the benefits applicable to the said post. The said decision was communicated to the Appellant vide letter dated 20th March 2015. Subsequently, Respondents vide letter dated 19th June 2015 forewarned the Appellant to give his acceptance to the offer of appointment for the post of Assistant (Grade-I) within seven days, failing which they would be at liberty to take appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submissions with respect to the law regarding "deemed confirmation" and relied upon the judgments in the case of Jai Prakash v. School Management of ITL Public School. [2015] 222 DLT 157 and Rajinder Singh Chauhan v. State of Haryana 2005 (85) DRJ 139. He urged that in view of the aforesaid judgments, the learned Single Judge has erred in disregarding his plea of deemed confirmation. He submitted that the engagement terms provide that probation cannot be extended beyond a fixed period and therefore Appellant ought to be considered as a case of deemed confirmation. Lastly, he urged that this Court while deciding W.P.(C) 5670/2014, had only directed the Respondents to pass a speaking order and it was not permissible for them to hold a fresh round of interaction/interview. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents argued that the plea of deemed confirmation was not applicable to the Appellant's terms of appointment. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the Appellant was duly considered for the post of Executive Officer, but not found suitable. He submitted that the report of 2009, does not create any vested right in favour of the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord that the writ petition bearing No. 5670/2014, was disposed of with the direction to the Respondents to pass a speaking order on his representation. In order to effectively comply with the directions of the court, another interaction was conducted by the Respondents. We find nothing wrong with the decision of the Respondents to conduct a fresh interaction, even if the same was not specifically directed by this Court. The Respondents had already made it palpably evident to the Appellant that they were not willing to confirm him on the post of Executive Officer. Thus, in order to comply with the directions of the court, and to give a meaningful and purposeful decision on the representation it was necessary and proper for the Respondents, to have another interaction with the Appellant. In this interaction/interview, his performance was assessed and the most recent confidential report (appraisal report) was examined and he was not found up to the mark. It was thus concluded that he was not fit for the post of Executive Officer. This was conveyed to the Appellant on 20th March 2015. Thus, essentially the reason for not offering the post of Executive Officer is the shortcoming on ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Singh Chauhan (supra) relied on by the Appellant can be distinguished on the basis of facts in the said case. Pertinently, Rajinder Singh Chauhan (supra), the service rules which governed the Petitioner's employment, specifically stipulated that incase the conduct of probationer is found satisfactory, he shall be confirmed from the date of completion of the probation period. In the present case, there is no such stipulation. On the contrary, Clause 9 of the letter of engagement clearly provides that consideration of the Appellant will be subject to the condition that the Appellant's performance and conduct is found satisfactory. The letter of engagement herein does not provide automatic confirmation on completion of the probation period. Merely because the Appellant, has worked as Management Trainee and that too on account of his own volition, he cannot claim confirmation on the post of Executive Officer by implication. We have also not been shown any provision in the rules or regulations, in support of Appellant's contention. Though, the Appellant has relied upon a circular dated 11th May 2007, however the same also does not assist him. The circular stipulates as under....