The petitioner was appointed on an ad-hoc basis for 6 months or if UPSC appoints suitable person, however here services were regularly renewed for multiple terms, around 3 years, and then she was terminated.
There it was said to have been recorded that the authorities were not satisfied with the performance of the appellant and so her reappointment after the expiry of the term was not recommended.
But it appears that at no time she was informed about her deficiencies. The order of termination came like a thunderbolt from the blue.
(1989) 3 SCC 311, MANU/SC/0167/1989
Labour Law, Termination of Employment
None
Sumati P. Shere vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (03.04.1989 - SC) :
The petitioner was appointed on an ad-hoc basis for 6 months or if UPSC appoints suitable person, however here services were regularly renewed for multiple terms, around 3 years, and then she was terminated.
There it was said to have been recorded that the authorities were not satisfied with the performance of the appellant and so her reappointment after the expiry of the term was not recommended.
But it appears that at no time she was informed about her deficiencies. The order of termination came like a thunderbolt from the blue.
“The court emphasized that in the relationship of master and servant there is a moral obligation to act fairly. An informal, if not formal, give-and-take, on the assessment of work of the employee should be there. The employee should be made aware of the defect in his work and deficiency in his performance. Defects or deficiencies; indifference or indiscretion may be with the employee by inadvertence and not by incapacity to work. Timely communication of the assessment of work in such cases may put the employee on the right track.”
Without any such communication, it would be arbitrary to give a movement order to the employee on the ground of unsuitability.
Sumati P. Shere vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (03.04.1989 - SC) :
The petitioner was appointed on an ad-hoc basis for 6 months or if UPSC appoints suitable person, however here services were regularly renewed for multiple terms, around 3 years, and then she was terminated.
There it was said to have been recorded that the authorities were not satisfied with the performance of the appellant and so her reappointment after the expiry of the term was not recommended.
But it appears that at no time she was informed about her deficiencies. The order of termination came like a thunderbolt from the blue.
“The court emphasized that in the relationship of master and servant there is a moral obligation to act fairly. An informal, if not formal, give-and-take, on the assessment of work of the employee should be there. The employee should be made aware of the defect in his work and deficiency in his performance. Defects or deficiencies; indifference or indiscretion may be with the employee by inadvertence and not by incapacity to work. Timely communication of the assessment of work in such cases may put the employee on the right track.”
Without any such communication, it would be arbitrary to give a movement order to the employee on the ground of unsuitability.