JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.2002, passed in CWJC No. 2534 of 1999 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ application and has set aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner from the post of Apprentice Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application and also directed the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India of consider the case of the writ petitioner for his appointment on the post of Probationary Development Officer. 2. The brief facts are that the sole respondent, namely, Mohammad Khurshid, filed CWJC No. 2534 of 1999 (R), before this Court, stating, inter alia, that pursuant to the advertisement, he applied for recruitment to the post of Apprentice Development Officer. After qualifying in the written test and the interview he was selected for being appointed to the said post and accordingly letter dated 30.11.1992 issued under the signature of the Marketing Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India was received by him regarding his selection on the said post and he was called for medical test. Therefore, by letter dated 3/16.12.1992, he was informed that he has been selected as an Apprentice Development Officer under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (ADO) Recruitment Scheme Act, 1991. It was mentioned therein that he would be taken as an Apprentice for a period of 9 months, commencing from 9.12.1992. Nine months period was divided in three parts of training i.e. Class Room Training for two months, Branch Administration Training for one month and Field Training for six months. It was also mentioned in the said letter that after completion of Class room and Branch Administrative Training there would be a Field Training in which his performance would be assessed on the basis of (i) Individual house-hold survey (ii) Canvassing prospects for Agency recruitment, (iii) Servicing Jobs and (iv) Visiting V.I.Ps. It was further mentioned that after completion of the Field Training for 5-1/2 months, there would be a written test for examining the knowledge acquired during the entire period of training. It was further mentioned in the said letter that during the nine months period of Apprentice he may avail leave for not more than 11 days, but not more than 5 days of such leave at a time, with the previous sanction of the Competent Authority. It was further mentioned in the said letter that during the nine months period of Apprentice he may avail leave for not more than 11 days, but not more than 5 days of such leave at a time, with the previous sanction of the Competent Authority. The further case of the writ petitioner was that he joined the Sales Training Centre at Patna on 18.12.1992 and completed the class room training and Branch Administration Training at Garhwa Branch of Life Insurance Corporation of India. It was also stated that by letter dated 9.7.1993, he was informed by the corporation that he will be completing 8-1/2 months Apprentice period on 23.8.1993 and then he had to appear in the written test to be conducted by the said training centre, Patna and accordingly the writ petitioner appeared in the said written test and passed successfully. All of a sudden the writ petitioner received a letter dated 5/8.2.1994 issued under the signature of Senior Divisional Manager by which he was informed that since his performance was not found to be satisfactory as Apprentice Development Officer, he was being terminated with immediate effect. The said order contained in letter dated 5/8.2.1994 was challenged in the said writ application on the ground that it was arbitrary and illegal as was in violation of the rules of natural justice as the writ petitioner was never served with any notice to show cause nor he was given a chance of being heard nor he was provided with a copy of adverse report, if any, against him and therefore, the order terminating his service as Apprentice Development Officer was liable to be quashed. 3. Life Insurance Corporation of India filed counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 16.4.1993 to 15.7.1993 i.e. for three months during the period of training without any leave and further that the writ petitioner did not submit the house hold-survey and Agency prospect reports. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that by letter dated 25.6.1993 the writ petitioner was asked to file show cause as to why he was unauthorisedly absent since 16.4.1993 without seeking permission from any corner. It is further stated that performance of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, he was rightly terminated from the post of Apprentice Development Officer. 4. It is further stated that performance of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, he was rightly terminated from the post of Apprentice Development Officer. 4. The learned Single Judge also called for original record of the Corporation and after perusal held that since the writ petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test, which he successfully passed and thereafter, the letter of termination was issued, without giving notice to show cause, the action of the respondent, was arbitrary and unjustified. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Life Insurance Corporation of India has filed the present Letter Patent Appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the respondent (writ petitioner) had not completed the full training of nine months as mentioned In the letter of appointment by remaining unauthorisedly absent for a period of three months and since he did not submit house- hold survey and Agency prospect reports, he was rightly terminated from the post of Apprentice Development Officer, because his performance was not found to be satisfactory. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the respondent had no right to hold the post, as he did not complete the training of the Apprentice Development Officer and therefore, he cannot claim to be appointed as Probationary Development Officer. The appointment to the post of Probationary Officer was subject to the condition that he successfully completes nine months training programme and passes the written test. Relying on the decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. Raghavendra Seshagin Rao Kulkarni reported in AIR 1998 SC 327 . it was contended that no notice at all was required to be given to the writ petitioner before terminating his service on the post of Apprentice Development Officer. 7. On the other hand Mr. M.S. Anwar learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in setting aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner in absence of prior notice to show cause. 7. On the other hand Mr. M.S. Anwar learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in setting aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner in absence of prior notice to show cause. It was further contended that the respondent had completed training for nine months, though he remained absent for the period i.e. from 16.4.1993 to 15.7.1993, because of his illness, but he informed the corporation by his letter dated 15.7.1993 addressed to the Manager, Garhwa Branch of the Corporation annexing a medical certificate which has been annexed as Annexure A/1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation in the writ application. 8. He further contended that in any view of the matter, since the respondent (writ petitioner) was allowed to appear in the written test which was meant only for candidates, who had completed the training and therefore, it would be deemed that the corporation condoned and waived his absence and therefore he was allowed to appear in the written test and was declared to have passed therein, the corporation was not right in terminating the service as Apprentice Development Officer of the writ petitioner on the ground that his performance was not found to be satisfactory. He further contended that adverse remarks of the corporation, in the termination letter to the effect that performance of writ petitioner was not satisfactory was a stigma against him and therefore, a notice to show cause was must, prior to termination. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2000 SC 1080 . 9. From the letter of appointment as Apprentice Development Officer dated 3/16.12.1992 (Annexure-2) It would appear that in Clause-6 of the said letter it was specifically mentioned that on successful completion of Apprenticeship period, the writ petitioner would be appointed as Development officer on Probation. In Clause-7 of the said letter, it was also mentioned that during the period of Apprenticeship, the writ petitioner can be discharged from service without any notice. In Clause-7 of the said letter, it was also mentioned that during the period of Apprenticeship, the writ petitioner can be discharged from service without any notice. Therefore, it is clear that for being appointed as Probationary Development Officer, the writ petitioner was required to complete successfully the training of nine months as Apprentice Development officer, but it is undisputed that, he did not attend the field training in between 16.4.1993 to 15.7.1993 and thereby out of total period of 5-1/2 months of field training, the writ petitioner un-authorisedly absented himself for about three months during of his field training and, therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner successfully completed his field training for a period of 5-1/2 months. Only because of the fact, that the writ petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test which was meant for the candidates who successfully completed the training, it cannot be said that the appellants condoned/waived the unauthorized absence of the writ petitioner from his field training and he would be deemed to have completed successfully his field training of 5-1 /2 months. 10. Successful completion of nine months training as mentioned in the letter of appointment was a sine quo non for being appointed, as Probationary Development Officer, in which the writ petitioner failed due to his unauthorized absence. Therefore, in our opinion, the appellants were fully justified in terminating the writ petitioner from the post of Apprentice Development Officer. 11. So far as the question of giving show cause notice to the writ petitioner before issuance of termination letter is concerned, we are of the view that the same was not required at all because in the letter of appointment itself it was specifically mentioned that without any prior notice to show cause the writ petitioner could have been discharged. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the order of termination was stigmatic, because the letter of termination contained that performance of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, notice to show cause was a must. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the order of termination was stigmatic, because the letter of termination contained that performance of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, notice to show cause was a must. In our view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent is devoid of any merit, as the writ petitioner had no right to hold the post of either Apprentice Development Officer or Probationary Development Officer since he did not even reach to the stage of Probationary Development Officer, rather he was holding only the post of Apprentice Development Officer and therefore, no notice to show cause before his termination was required at all. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent i.e. AIR 2000 SC 1080 is concerned, we may state that the said decision was, regarding a Probationer and in the said case, while terminating the services of probationer, the employer had made several allegations against him and therefore in the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the letter of termination issued to probationer was punitive in nature and was stigmatic and therefore, notice to show cause was required to be given, but in the present case as stated earlier, that the writ petitioner had not even reached to the stage of Probationary Development Officer and was only holding the post of Apprentice Development Officer and therefore, the case of an Apprentice cannot be equated with that of Probationer. The writ petitioner could have reached the stage of Probationary Development Officer only after successful completion of training of nine months as mentioned in the letter of the appointment, but the failed to compete the training due to his unauthorized absence and did not submit the House Hold Survey and Agency Prospect Report which viewed seriously by the Life Insurance Corporation of India which would be evident from annxure-B to the counter affidavit which is a letter issued to the writ petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India. 12. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the fining of the appellants that performance of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory was stimatic. 13. 12. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the fining of the appellants that performance of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory was stimatic. 13. In view of our finding as mentioned above we find that the learned Single Judge was not right in setting aside the termination of the writ petitioner on the ground that no notice to show cause was given to him prior to issuance of appellants in terminating the writ petitioner from the post of Apprentice Development Officer was arbitrary and unjustified cannot be upheld. 14. In view of the above discussions and findings, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently the writ application stands dismissed.