http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: K.V. KRISHNAMANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LALIT KALA ACADEMY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  arises out  of the order of the Delhi High Court in  Writ Petition  No. 3695  of 1990 made on April 30, 1991. The  appellant was appointed initially on ad hoc basis on March,  3, 1987 and thereafter with a view to regularises his services, he was put on probation. During probation, his services having  been found  to be  not  satisfactory,  were terminated  by   proceedings  date  December  1,  1989.  The appellant  came  to  challenge  the  same  by  filling  writ petition in  November 1990  which was  dismissed by the High Court the this appeal by special leave.      It  is  contended  by  the  appellant  that  since  the averments made  in the  counter would  constitute foundation for dismissal  for misconduct, an enquiry in this behalf was required to  be made.  On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent  that during  the probation the appellant did not acquire  any right  to  the  post.  If  on  being  found suitable  he  was  regularised,  only  then  he  would  have acquired  the   right  to   continue  in  the  post.  During probation,  it   was  found   that  his  services  were  not satisfactory and reasons were given in support thereof. Thus they do  not constitute  foundation but  motive to terminate the services.  We  find  force  in  the  contention  of  the respondent. They  have explained  that the  driving  of  the staff car  was not  satisfactory and  that, therefore,  they have  terminated   the  services  of  the  appellant  during probation. They  very object of the probation is to test the suitability and  if the  appointed authority  finds that the candidate  is  not  suitable,  it  certainly  has  power  to terminate  the   services  of   the  employee.  Under  these circumstances, it  cannot  but  be  held  that  the  reasons mentioned  constitute   motive  and   not   foundation   for termination of  service. Therefore,  we hold  that the  High Court has not committed any error of law.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.