Govt Employees On Probation Not 'Temporary Employees', Cannot Be Terminated Without Departmental Action: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that a government employee who has been appointed by a regular mode of selection, and is on probation, cannot be treated as a temporary government employee whose services can be terminated by giving one month notice under Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (“the Rules”) which is meant for temporary employees.

The bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal was hearing a petition filed by an individual who was appointed as a Class IV employee by the state government but his services were terminated under Rule 23-A of the Rules. The order terminating the services was under challenge in the petition.

The Court relied upon a coordinate bench decision in Dinesh Kumar Meena v State of Rajasthan and Ors. in which the Court held that Rule 23-A could not be applied to employees on probation since such employees could not fall in the category of 'temporary employees'.

“This Court finds that Rule 23-A only applies to the temporary Government servants and not to the probationers. This Court is of the opinion, that if the person is appointed after undergoing regular mode of selection, his service conditions are governed by statutory Rules…Such person acquires a status of probationer and he is not temporary Govt. employee. The Court finds that once the petitioners were appointed on probation, they could not have been treated as a temporary Government servant and respondents exercised power under Rule 23-A of RSR in a wrong and illegal manner.”

It was the case of the respondents that they were agreeable to the fact that the petitioner was a probationer and it was erroneous on their part to invoke Rule 23-A to terminate his services. However, it was argued that, his services were terminated for being unsatisfactory and merely invoking wrong provision erroneously could not render the order of termination invalid.

The Court rejected this argument of the respondents and highlighted their reply to the petition in which too they had defended the order stating that since the petitioner was a temporary employee, his services were rightly terminated under Rule 23-A. Pursuant to this, the Court had asked them to justify their actions of treating the petitioner as a temporary employee to which an additional affidavit was filed by the respondents. In the affidavit, while maintaining the same stance, the respondents stated that,

“It is pertinent to mention here that in the probation period of an employee, 'temporary' is being mentioned and after successful completion of the probation period, the Head of the Department/Appointing Authority issue order of regularization separately, after which the employee comes under the category of regular/permanent employee but before that the employee is like a temporary employee in the probation period.”

Based on the following, the Court observed that it was apparent that the respondents had consciously invoked Rule 23-A to terminate the services of the petitioner treating him a temporary employee and not due to any bona-fide error. Hence, the arguments put forth by the respondents were rejected.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Title: Mahesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

Click Here To Read/Download Order