NDLI: Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Probation period Judicial Service Order of nonconfirmation in
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Judicial Service – Probation period – Order of non-confirmation in – Respondent no.1 – a former Judicial Officer was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate and he was placed on probation for a period of two years – There were certain allegations of 7 and corruption in discharge of judicial functions during the probation period against respondent no.1 – On basis of which the Registrar of Vigilance was called and he submitted a report – The Administration Committee of the High Court did not confirm the service of respondent no.1 – The Full Court of the High Court confirmed the recommendations – Consequently, on basis of the recommendation of the High Court the State government dispensed with the services of respondent no.1 – Writ Petition by respondent no.1 – The Division Bench of the High Court quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement of respondent no. 1 – Before the Supreme Court, the respondent no. 1 contended that it was a case of an indictment following allegations of corruption against him – On appeal, held: The entire object of probation is to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer’s performance and test his suitability for a particular post – The true test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied after the candidate joins and starts working – In the instant case, the order of termination of services of respondent no. 1 is based upon overall assessment of performance of respondent no. 1 during the period of probation, which was not found satisfactory – Such an inference which can be valid foundation to dispense with services of a probationer does not warrant holding of an enquiry in terms of Art. 311 of the Constitution – It is thus not true on part of respondent no. 1 to allege that it was a case of an indictment following allegations of corruption against him – There is nothing in the present case to infer that the motivation behind the removal was any allegation – Instead, it was a routine confirmation exercise – The foundation for removal was not the allegations but it was a holistic assessment of respondent’s service record – Therefore, the judgment of the High Court set aside.Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Judicial review by the High Court over the decision taken by its Full Court on administrative side – Held: Although it would be a futile task to exhaustively delineate the scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters but a High Court u/Art. 226 has limited scope and it ought to interfere cautiously – The amplitude of such jurisdiction cannot be enlarged to sit as an ‘appellate authority’, and hence care must be taken to not hold another possible interpretation on the same set of material or substitute the Court’s opinion for that of the disciplinary authority – This is especially true given the responsibility and powers bestowed upon the High Court u/Art.235 of the Constitution – The collective wisdom of the Full Court deserves due respect, weightage and consideration in the process of judicial review.Service Law – Difference between the termination of a probationer and of a confirmed employee – Held: There is a subtle, yet fundamental, difference between termination of a probationer and that of a confirmed employee – Although it is undisputed that the State cannot act arbitrarily in either case, yet there has to be a difference in judicial approach between the two – Whereas in the case of a confirmed employee the scope of judicial interference would be more expansive given the protection u/Art. 311 of the Constitution or the Service Rules but such may not be true in the case of probationers who are denuded of such protection(s) while working on trial basis – Constitution of India – Art. 311.Service Law – Right to continue in the employment of probationers – Held: Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by the competent authority if found unsuitable – It is only in a very limited category of cases that such probationers can seek protection under the principles of natural justice, say when they are ‘removed’ in a manner which prejudices their future prospects in alternate fields or casts aspersions on their character or violates their constitutional rights – In such cases of ‘stigmatic’ removal only a reasonable opportunity of hearing is sine-qua-non.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai Honble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 306
Petitioner	Rajasthan High Court
Respondent	Ved Priya & Anr.
SCR	[2020] 4 S.C.R. 971
Judgement Date	2020-03-18
Case Number	8933-8934

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Abhay Jain Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Anr

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. Veena Verma & Anr.

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. Neetu Harsh & Anr.

K.anbazhagan & Anr. Vs. The Registrar General High Court of Madras & Anr.

Chaitanya Prakash & Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Thru. Registrar and Ors. Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association and Anr.

R.c. Chandel Vs. High Court of M.p. & Anr.

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.p. Singh and Anr

Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya & Anr.

Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Abhay Jain Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Anr

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. Veena Verma & Anr.

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. Neetu Harsh & Anr.

K.anbazhagan & Anr. Vs. The Registrar General High Court of Madras & Anr.

Chaitanya Prakash & Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Thru. Registrar and Ors. Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association and Anr.

R.c. Chandel Vs. High Court of M.p. & Anr.

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.p. Singh and Anr

Rajasthan High Court Vs. Ved Priya & Anr.