Rule 23A Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951| Services Of Employee On Probation Cannot Be Terminated By Treating Them As Temporary Employees: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court held that the services of an employee on probation cannot be terminated by treating him as a temporary employee invoking Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules.
The Court quashed the termination of a probationary Class IV employee (petitioner) at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (employer), rejecting the employer's argument that he was a temporary employee whose services could be terminated under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
A Single Bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal held, “The order impugned supported and defended by the reply and the additional affidavit dated 26.07.2024 filed by the respondent No.2 leaves no room for doubt that it was consciously and deliberately passed invoking Rule 23A of the Rules of 1951. In view thereof, contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable…In the aforesaid case, it has been held that services of a probationer cannot be terminated invoking Rule 23A of the Rules of 1951.”
Advocate Hemant Taylor appeared for the petitioner, while AGC Vinod Kumar Gupta represented the respondents.
The petitioner challenged the order of termination after his probationary services were terminated under Rule 23A of the Rules, which he argued were meant for temporary employees. The petitioner submitted that his dismissal was “bad in law” since he was a probationary employee, not a temporary one.
The Court noted employer defended the termination order stating that since he was a temporary employee, his services were rightly terminated invoking Rule 23A of the Rules. The Court further noted that the employer maintained the stand that till the successful completion of the probation period, the employment was considered a temporary one.
“Therefore, from the abovementioned stand of the respondents, it is apparent that they have consciously terminated services of the petitioner invoking Rule 23A of the Rules of 1951 treating him as a temporary employee and not on account of a bona fide error,” the Court remarked.
The Bench clarified that the well-settled legal proposition that a Court must take a case as set out by the parties in their pleadings, and not make out a case of its own dehors the pleadings.
Consequently, the High Court held that the contention of the employer was not acceptable, reiterating the position of a co-ordinate Bench in Dinesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2019) wherein it was held that “persons appointed on substantive basis against substantive post have been appointed on regular basis and they are not temporary Govt. employees.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Mahesh Kumar v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:32037)
