VIBHAV VIKRANT v. Himantika Saini & Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates

% 03.02.2011 By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19th January, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (tribunal, for short) in O.A. No. 164/2011 whereby it has declined to interfere with the order termination passed against the petitioner by respondent.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of External Pilot in National Technical Research Organization (NTRO, for short) on 3rd April, 2008 for a period of two years. Clause 5 of the offer of appointment reads as follows:- The

5. Shri Vaibhav Vikrant will be on probation for a period of two years from joining which may be the date of extended at the discretion of terms & competent authority. conditions of service during this period will be governed as per Central Civil (Temporary Service) Rules Service 1965 in force from time to time. During this period of probation his services are liable to be terminated without notice or without assigning any reason there of if his performance is found to be not satisfactory or if the Govt. is satisfied that he was ineligible for recruitment to this service/post in the first instance itself.

Thereafter a formal order of appointment was issued on 2nd May, 2008. After the order of termination was passed, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 3491/2010 contending, inter alia, that the petitioner should have been considered for conversion from External Pilot (EP) to Internal Pilot (IP). The tribunal directed the authorities to consider the said representation. The said representation has been rejected by order dated 24th December, 2010 contained in Annexure P-8.

The order of termination and rejection of representation were assailed in the present Original Application. It was contended before the tribunal that after the petitioner completed the period of two years, he should be deemed to have been confirmed in the post in question. The tribunal negatived the said contention by pressing reliance on the decision in Wasim Beg versus State of U.P. and Others, (1998) 3 SCC 321 and State of Punjab and Others versus Sukhwinder Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 569. In our considered opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal on this score is absolutely correct as no affirmative order has been passed relating to confirmation. We may also hasten to state with profit that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not also challenge the said aspect and rightly so.

The only contention that has been advanced before us is that the authority should have been well advised to convert from EP to IP. To bolster the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the option given by the petitioner on 31st August, 2010. Relying on the said communication, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had a vested right for consideration. It is not in dispute that the streams are different and trainings are different. The claim put forth by the petitioner that he has a vested right for conversion is not remotely visible from any material brought on record. Hence, we do not perceive any merit in the said contention.

In view of the aforesaid analysis when the petitioner did not qualify the test EP training successfully the authority is justified in terminating his services and by no stretch of imagination the said order of termination can be regarded as stigmatic.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 03, 2011 VKR