* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: December 02, 2009
+ L.P.A. 350/2000
HARKESH MEENA SI (STENO) ..... Appellant
Through: Kunwar C.M.Khan, Mr.Ramesh Kumar
Koli and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Amit Bansal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The impugned order dated 12.6.2000 reads as
under:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated
28.3.2000, wherein it has been shown that he has not
been able to fulfill the conditions of appointment,
namely that he should have acquired requisite
typing/shorthand speed as early as possible. Since the
petitioner was on temporary service, which was to be
regularized only upon his fulfilling the conditions
contained in the appointment letter and he having not
LPA 350/2000 Page 1 of 4
fulfilled the same, he has been issued a notice dated
28.3.2000, which he challenges.
I find no infirmity in the impugned notice.
Dismissed.”
2. On 30.12.1997, a letter of appointment offering the
post of SI (Steno) was issued by the DIG CRPF clearly
indicating that the post offered to the appellant was on purely
temporary capacity. Vide clause-vii of the said letter it was
informed to the appellant:
“You must acquire requisite typing/shorthand speed as
early as possible. You will not be allowed to draw
increment or considered for confirmation/promotion to
next unless you obtain the requisite typing/shorthand
speed.”
3. It is apparent that the confirmation of the appellant
was contingent upon obtaining the requisite typing/shorthand
speed. Thus, it can be said that till confirmed, the status of
the appellant was akin to a probationer.
4. On 28.3.2000, the services of the appellant were
discontinued informing him that after one month his
employment would cease.
5. The reason thereof is that the appellant failed to
attain the requisite typing/shorthand speed.
6. It has been urged by learned counsel for the
appellant that the impugned order dated 28.3.2000 has been
LPA 350/2000 Page 2 of 4
passed after two years of employment and thus the appellant
has to be treated as a confirmed employee.
7. What is the basis of the said submission has
remained a mystery.
8. It is settled law that unless the rule prescribes to
the contrary a person appointed on probation or on a
temporary basis cannot claim permanency upon being
continued in service beyond the initial prescribed period of
probation or temporary engagement.
9. It is next urged that the employer sent the
appellant for duty to Manipur where business was not being
transacted in Hindi and thus the appellant could not acquire
skill in shorthand/typing in Hindi. It is urged that a test was
held on 7.1.2000 to test the proficiency of the persons
appointed as Steno-Typist in which the appellant failed.
Attributing the reason of failure to the respondents it is urged
that in terms of the circular dated October 1998 it was the
duty of the respondents to impart at least six months training
to the appellant.
10. It may be noted that the appellant has done his
schooling in Hindi medium and would be expected to be
proficient in Hindi. As regards the circular dated October 1998
which is annexed as Annexure P-10 it simply states that job
LPA 350/2000 Page 3 of 4
training for six months under the direct supervision of the
head of office be imparted. The circular does not require the
candidates to be sent to any training institutes. The circular
only requires that the candidate should be under the direct
supervision of the head of office. Further, the said circular is
not general in nature but is addressed to the Commandant
92nd Bn. CRPF at Varanasi.
11. Thus, we find no scope to grant any benefit to the
appellant and concur with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
December 02, 2009
Dharmender
LPA 350/2000 Page 4 of 4