Vide letter dated 22.12.2010 of Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer of the Bank, the Probationary Officers of 2009 10 batch were informed that they are due for companyfirmation on 15.5.2011 and, therefore, they may appear in the test proposed to be companyducted on 27.2.2011.
The private respondents challenged the termination of their services by filing writ petitions mainly on the grounds that the action taken by the companycerned authorities of the Bank was arbitrary and violative of the rules of natural justice.
While quashing orders dated 25.9.1980, this Court observed When the master servant relation was governed by the archaic law of hire and fire, the companycept of probation in service jurisprudence was practically absent.
The private respondents further pleaded that even though they had requested the companycerned officers of the Bank to disclose the reasons for extension of probation and termination of their services but numberresponse was received from them.
They pleaded that during the period of probation, numberone had informed them about any shortcoming, deficiency or defect in their work and yet their services were terminated without giving them numberice and opportunity of hearing.
One of the several grounds on which the appellants challenged the termination of their services was that the action of the employer was wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause companytained in the Constitution.
Thereafter, his service was terminated by a number stigmatic order.
