JUDGMENT
G.B. Pattnaik, J.
1. The order of termination of petitioner’s apprenticeship dated 3-2-1993, annexed as Annexure-5, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application, inter alia, on the ground that the said order is the outcome of total non-application of mind and contrary to the set of Rules prevalent during the material period.
2. An advertisement was issued from the Divisional Office at Sambalpur on 14-5-1991 for recruitment as Apprentice Development Officer for appointment to the cadre of Development Officer (Class- II). The advertisement has been annexed as Annexure-1. It was stipulated in the advertisement that those who will be declared successful on the basis of the interview will be appointed as Apprentice Development Officers subject to their being found medically fit by the medical examiner and the selected candidates will be initially appointed as Apprentice Development Officers for a period not exceeding one year and the period of apprenticeship will not count as service. It was further stipulated that on successful completion of apprenticeship the candidates will be appointed as Probationary Development Officers and the period of probation will be one year and on satisfactory completion of probation, the Development Officer will be confirmed as a Development Officer. Pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, the petitioner made an application and thereafter having been found eligible for recruitment was called upon to appear at a written test and interview. Having been found suitable for the post on the basis of the written test and results of the interview, be was offered an appointment as an Apprentice Development Officer under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Apprentice Development Officers) Recruitment Scheme, .1980 (herein after referred to as the “Recruitmant Scheme”). The said letter of offer dated 8.9.1982 has been annexed as Annexure-2. It was stipulated in the aforesaid offer that only on completion of apprenticeship period, it his work and condact are found satisfactory, than he will be appointed as a Development Officer on probation and during the period of appre- nticeship he is lable to be discharged from service without any notice.
The petitioner accepted the aforesaid offer of appointment and was initially posted at Sales Training Centre and thareafter to the Branch Office at Uditnegar. The petitioner asserts that his business performance during the period of apprenticeship was very good. On completion of the apprenticeship period, the petitioner was called to appear in a written test on 14-11-1992. though according to the petitioner’s casa ha was entitled to be appointed as Development Officer on probation. The petitioner enquired about the subsequent written test for which he was called upon to appear and he was intimated that it was of a formal nature and he should meet the Marketing Manager for “interview and -discussion. The petitioner appeared at an interview with the Marketing Manager. He received a letter dated 3-2-1993 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager intimating that his services were terminated as he did not secure the minimum qualifying marks in the test held on 14-11- 1992. The said letter which has been annexed as Annexure-5 is the impugned letter. The petitioner’s case in nutshell is that in accordance with the advertisement issued a second written test is not contemplated and, therefore, holding of a fresh written test on 14-11-1992 after completion of the apprenticeship period is contrary to the provisions of the scheme and consequently, the impugned letter based on the result of such written test is invalid and inoperative.
3. The Corporation (opp. party No. 1) has filed an affidavit being sworn to by the Senior Divisional Manager (opp party No. 2) and the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the Recruitment Scheme of 1980 stood amended with effect from I-10-1991 and in accordance with the amended scheme, an Apprentice Officer was required to appear at a fresh written test and since the petitioner did not qualify in that test, the impugned order has been passed. The further stand taken in the counter affidavit is that a person who is declared successful on the basis of the. interview even under the 1980 Scheme is entitled to be appointed as Apprentice Development Officer for one year and on successful completion of such apprenticeship he is entitled to be appointed as a Probationiry Devalopment Officer. The employer, tharefore, was entitled to hold a test on successful completion of the apprenticeship period to adjudge the suitability of the person concerned to be appointed as a Probationary Development Officer and consequently, there has been no infirmity in holding the written test on 14-11-1982.. The petitioner having been found unsuitable in the said test, the employer passed the impugned order under annexure-5
An additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation and the petitioner has also filed a Rejoinder refuting the assertions made in the counter affidavit.
4. In view of the rival stand of the parties, the main question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner having been selected for the post of Apprenticeship Development Officer in accordance with the Recruitment Scheme of 1980, was all required to undergo a further written test in accordance with the amended Recruitment Scheme of 1991 after completion of the period of apprenticeship. There is no dispute that under the Recruitment Scheme of 1980, these was no requirement of undergoing any fresh written test on completion of the apprenticeship period and it is only on successful completion of the period, an apprentice was entitled to be appointed as a Probationary Development Officer. But under the amended Scheme of 1991, the Apprentice Development Officers arc required to undergo a written test and only on qualifying in the said written test they can be appointed as Probationary Development Officer. The positive stand of the Corporation in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner having failed in the written test so held, the period of apprenticeship has been cancelled under the impugned letter.
Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner contends that the advertisement having been issued for recruitment in accordance with the 1980 Scheme and the petitioner having been tested in accordance with the said Scheme and having been offered the appointment under the said Scheme, the future course of action would be governed by the said Scheme so far as the petitioner is concerned, and the amended Scheme will have no application. Mr. Mohanty. on the other hand, appearing for the Corporation contends that the amended Scheme being procedural in nature would govern the petitioner’s case and, therefore, rightly the employer held another test to adjudge the suitability of the Apprentice Development Officers for being appointed as Probationary Development Officers.
5. It may be noticed that though the revised Scheme came into force with effect from 1-10-1991, but the petitioner was tested in accordance with the Recruitment Scheme of 1980 and was also offered the appointment of Apprentice Development Officer on 8-2 1992 in accordance with the Recruitment Scheme of 1980. On examining the amended Scheme of 1991, we do not find anything therein to indicate that the said amended Recruitment Scheme would be applicable to Apprentice Development Officers who have been adjudged suitable under the Recruitment Scheme of 1980. In that view of the matter, the employer was not entitled to hold a fresh written test of the petitioner in accordance with the Recruitment Scheme of 1991 and, on the other hand, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for being appointed as a Probationary Development Officer if his performance as an Apprentice Development Officer was found to be satisfactory Holding of a written test in respect of the petitioner in accordance with the amended Recruitment Schema of 1991 is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is invalid and inoperative. The impagned letter having enacted as the petitioner was unsuccessful in the written test held in accordance with the amended Recruitment Scheme, the said letter must be held to be invalid and inoperative. We accordingly quash the impugned letter under Annexure-5 and direct the opposite parties to consider the petitioner’s case for being appointed as a Probationary Development Officer it his performance as an Apprentice Development Officer has been found to be satisfacto.y.
6. M. Mohanty appearig for the Corporation in course of hearing Contended with vehemence
Aporentce Development Officer even under the Recruitment Scheme of 1980 is not entitled to be appointed as a Probationary Development Officer and similarly a person appointed as a Probationary Development Officer is al+so not entitled to be confirmed in the cadre. There cannot be any dispute with the aforesaid proposition advanced by Mr. Mohantv appearing for the Corporation. But at the same time, the petitioner was entiled to be considered for being appointed as a Probationary Development Officer if his performance as an Apprentice Development Officer has been found to be satisfactory. Since the petitioner’s appointment as a Probationary Development Officer did not come through because of the application of the amended Recruitment Scheme, and in view of our conclusion that the amended Recruitment Scheme does not apply to the petitioner’s casa, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for being appointed as a Probationary Development Officer as stated earlier.
7. In the premises, as aforesaid, the writ application is allowed. The opposite parties are commanded to consider the petitioner’s case for being appointed as a Probationary Development Officer in accordance with the Recruitment Scheme of 1980. within a period of six weeks from the data of receipt of our order and appropriate orders thereon may be communicated to the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.
D.M. Patnaik, J.
I agree.