The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a government employee appointed through a regular selection process and serving a probationary period cannot be considered a temporary government employee. Therefore, such an employee’s services cannot be terminated by invoking Rule 23-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (the “Rules”), which applies specifically to temporary employees.
This decision was made by Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal while hearing a petition filed by an individual who was appointed as a Class IV employee by the state government. The petition challenged the termination of his services under Rule 23-A of the Rules.
Court’s Reliance on Precedent
The Court’s decision was influenced by a previous ruling in the case of Dinesh Kumar Meena v State of Rajasthan and Ors., where it was established that Rule 23-A does not apply to employees on probation. The Court reiterated that employees on probation do not fall under the category of ‘temporary employees.’
The Court stated, “This Court finds that Rule 23-A only applies to temporary Government servants and not to probationers. This Court is of the opinion that if the person is appointed after undergoing a regular mode of selection, his service conditions are governed by statutory Rules. Such a person acquires the status of a probationer and is not a temporary Government employee. The Court finds that once the petitioners were appointed on probation, they could not have been treated as temporary Government servants, and the respondents exercised power under Rule 23-A of RSR in a wrong and illegal manner.”
Respondents’ Arguments and Court’s Rejection
The respondents admitted that the petitioner was a probationer and acknowledged that it was incorrect to use Rule 23-A to terminate his services. However, they argued that the petitioner’s services were terminated due to unsatisfactory performance, and the incorrect application of Rule 23-A should not invalidate the termination order.
The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the respondents had initially defended their actions by claiming that the petitioner was a temporary employee, justifying the use of Rule 23-A. When asked to clarify their position, the respondents submitted an additional affidavit stating that during the probation period, an employee is considered ‘temporary,’ and only after successful completion of the probation period does the employee become regular or permanent.
Court’s Conclusion
The Court concluded that the respondents had knowingly and consciously invoked Rule 23-A to terminate the petitioner’s services by treating him as a temporary employee, rather than due to a bona fide error. As a result, the Court rejected the respondents’ arguments and ruled in favor of the petitioner.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
