The Madras High Court held that when an employee is allowed to continue in service for an extended period beyond prescribed probation, with all benefits of a permanent employee, summary termination as a probationer without notice is not justifiable—even if the original appointment was irregular but not illegal. Court reaffirmed and applied the Supreme Court’s distinction between ‘illegal’ and ‘irregular’ appointments, and clarified the approach to regularization for such cases. Stands as binding authority within the Madras High Court and persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/1569/2019 of H.ANANDHI Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | HCMA010739762019 |
| Date of Registration | 27-04-2019 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL (concurring) |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: M.S. RAMESH, R. SAKTHIVEL JJ. |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Madras High Court; Persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside Single Judge order (W.P.No.32296 of 2018); Follows Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged service beyond probation with all service benefits amounts to regularization, precluding summary termination as a ‘probationer’ without notice, particularly where initial appointment was irregular but not illegal. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where an employee is appointed through a regular selection process to a sanctioned post but is over-aged or lacks certain prescribed qualifications at the time of appointment, such appointment may be irregular—but not illegal. When an employer fails to declare completion or extension of probation and allows the employee to continue for years with all benefits of permanency, the employee attains the status of a regular employee. In such circumstances, summary termination on the ground of “probationer” status, without show cause notice or opportunity to be heard, is unjustified. Regularization considerations may apply, and subsequent acquisition of required qualifications further militates against treating the appointment as void. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], Vinoth Kumar v. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 327] |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court distinguished “illegal” from “irregular” appointments per Umadevi, applied Vinoth Kumar for regularization when procedural irregularities but substantive fairness exist, and emphasized accrued rights from long service and consistent confirmation of good performance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant was appointed as a Costume Assistant–Grade II at Kalakshetra Foundation after a regular selection process. Though initially on probation for two years, her probation was neither declared as completed nor extended; nonetheless, she was granted all benefits of a permanent employee, had an unblemished record, and served over 8 ½ years before her summary termination for being overage and lacking the requisite degree at the time of appointment. She later acquired the prescribed degree and challenged the termination. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the Madras High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Central Administrative Tribunals, and potentially before the Supreme Court |
| Follows | State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1; Vinoth Kumar v. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 327 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Division Bench clarifies that extended continuation of ‘probationers’ with all regular benefits and no adverse entries results in regularization by conduct, precluding summary termination without notice.
- Distinction between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments is reaffirmed; irregular “procedural” defects (e.g., overage, later acquisition of degree) do not render an appointment void.
- Employers must either formally extend probation or declare its completion within the statutory period; failure to do so can confer substantive rights on the employee.
- Employer conduct—such as issuing periodic increments, annual appraisals, and DA—will be weighed against claims of continued probationary status.
- Lawyers may cite this decision to protect employees from arbitrary removal after many years of apparently regular service, even where initial eligibility is questioned.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the appellant was appointed via regular process but did not possess the essential qualification or fall within the age limit at appointment. However, her appointment was made consciously by the employer, without any suppression of facts.
- Probation for the post was statutorily two years. The employer neither declared nor extended this probation, but allowed the appellant to work for over 8.5 years with all service benefits and unblemished record.
- Relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Court distinguished between “illegal” (void ab initio) and “irregular” (procedurally flawed but not void) appointments. The present case was held “irregular.”
- The Court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Vinoth Kumar v. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 327], observing that technical/procedural irregularities should not permanently deprive employees of accrued substantive rights from long service.
- Accordingly, treating the appellant as a probationer for the purpose of termination after years of acknowledged, high-integrity service was found impermissible. A fair opportunity (show cause notice) was held mandatory under these circumstances.
- The Court set aside both the termination order and the Single Judge’s supporting judgment, directing reinstatement and formal declaration of completion of probation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Termination order violated principles of natural justice due to lack of show cause notice.
- Appellant had served over 8½ years with no adverse remarks, received all service benefits, and was treated as a regular employee.
- Probation period was neither extended nor explicitly ended.
- Appellant had acquired the prescribed degree after appointment.
Respondent
- Appellant continued as a probationer at the time of termination.
- Appointment order permitted termination without notice or reason during probation.
- Appellant did not possess essential qualification or fulfillment of age criteria at appointment, justifying summary termination.
Factual Background
The dispute arose out of the termination of the appellant, appointed as Costume Assistant–Grade II at Kalakshetra Foundation following a regular recruitment process. While the prescribed qualification required a degree and age below 30, the appellant was over-aged and acquired her degree after appointment. She was put on two years’ probation, which was neither extended nor declared complete, but she continued in service for over 8.5 years with all associated benefits and an unblemished record. Service was summarily terminated in 2018 for technical ineligibility; the writ petition against this was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 3 of Kalakshetra Foundation Recruitment Regulations 2005 and Clause 12 of the Schedule: Prescribe two-year probation and essential qualification (degree, under 30 years).
- Appointment order: Allows termination during probation without reason or notice.
- Court interpreted these provisions—holding that employer inaction in extending or declaring completion of probation, while continuing to confer all regular employee benefits, can regularize service status by conduct.
- No explicit constitutional provisions discussed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissent noted; both judges concurred in full on reasoning and outcome.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural principles or broad guidelines issued; however, the Court stressed the need for show cause notice/opportunity to be heard in similar long-term “probationer” situations, deviating from mere adherence to appointment order clauses.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed (State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, Vinoth Kumar v. Union of India)