Suresh Chand Bansal vs Alwar Bharatpur Gramin Bank and Another

Misra, J.—The petitioner had been appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the year 1983 in the respondent- Alwar Bharatpur Anchalik Gramin Bank and was put on probation for a period of one year after which it was extended by three months by order dated 1st May 1984. The services of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and hence his period of probation was extended. The petitioner was confirmed on the post therefore but he felt aggrieved after seven years of his confirmation that his extension period should not have been extended for a period of three months meaning thereby that he should have been confirmed on the post immediately after completion of one year. The grievance of the petitioner is that the extension of the period of probation for a period of three months has affected his seniority and hence he has challenged the order extending the period of probation by filing this writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner was heard but no argument has been advanced on what basis the extension of the probation period could be challenged by the petitioner specially when Rule 13 regarding determination of seniority clearly envisages extension of the period of probation which states as follows:-

SENIORITY

(1) (a) Seniority of an officer or employee of the Bank in a grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the date of his appointment in that grade or scale.

(b) Where there are two or more officers of the same length of service in that grade or scale their inter-se seniority shall be reckoned with reference to their seniority in the immediately preceding grade or scale or the previous cadre to which they belong in the Bank''s service.

(c) Where there are two or more officers of the same length of service of such grade or scale or such previous cadre their seniority shall be determined with reference to their seniority in the immediately proceeding grade or scale or cadre; and the case may be.

(2) The inter-se seniority of officers of employees directly recruited in a batch to any grade or scale shall be reckoned with reference to the rank allotted to them at the time of such recruitment.

(3) In the case of an officer or employee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shall be reckoned just below all the officers or employee, if any, recruited or promoted in the same batch alongwith him.

Thus, an perusal of the aforesaid rule it can reasonably be inferred that extension of the period of probation is well incorporated under the rule framed for determining seniority. The validity of the Rule which envisages extension of the period of probation is not under challenge in any manner and yet the petitioner felt aggrieved of the extension of his period of probation. Besides this the petitioner has challenged the extension of his period of probation after seven years of his confirmation when he realised that his confirmation after one year and three months would hold him Junior to many other persons after the seniority list was published.

Once the extension of the period of probation of the petitioner is in consonance with the Rule quoted hereinabove wherein no infirmity whatsoever could be pointed out, it is difficult to entertain the challenge to the order extending the period of probation. If the petitioner infact had any legal and sustainable reason to challenge the same he could have challenged it at the relevant time seven years ago but even if the delay in challenging the same is ignored, it is clear that the Bank had the legal authority to extend the period of probation of the petitioner for a further period of three months after completion of one year if his services were not found upto the mark immediately on completion of one year. Both ways this writ petition has not merit and hence it stands dismissed.