PRADIP MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order under Annexure-2 terminating his services. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a PGT in Physics in DAV Public School PPL, paradeep, by order dated July 12, 1996 annexure-1. From Annexure-1 it would appear that the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of one year, on successful completion of which his services would be confirmed in writing. After completion of one year, the authorities the services of the petitioner by one year, which would be evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the Principal, DAV Public School. While the petitioner was continuing during the extended probation period, his services were terminated by order in Annexure-2 stating therein that the services of the petitioner were no more required after May 30, 1998. This order has been assailed in the writ petition. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 2 and 3 stating that there were complaints regarding the petitioner's unsatisfactory teaching, which, on verification, was found to be correct. It was also stated that during the first probation of one year, the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory. During the extended probation period, a subcommittee was constituted to assess the performance of the petitioner. The subcommittee also found that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Accordingly, the impugned order was issued terminating the services of the petitioner, which does not cast any stigma. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the petitioner was undisputedly appointed on probation for a period of one year. It was stated in the appointment order that on completion of probation period, he would be confirmed in writing, in the event his performance was found satisfactory. It was also stated that during the probation period, his services could be terminated without assigning any reason. During the initial period of probation, the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, for which his probation was extended for another one year during the extended period of probation, the performance of the petitioner was also found 'to be unsatisfactory, as reported by the sub-committee. Therefore, the authorities passed the impugned order, which cannot be faulted. During the initial period of probation, the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, for which his probation was extended for another one year during the extended period of probation, the performance of the petitioner was also found 'to be unsatisfactory, as reported by the sub-committee. Therefore, the authorities passed the impugned order, which cannot be faulted. ( 5 ) THE period of probation is a period of test during which the work and the conduct of the employee is under scrutiny. If on an assessment of his work and conduct during this period it is found that he is not suitable for the post, it is open to the employer to terminate his services. His services cannot be equated with that of a permanent employee who on account of his status is entitled to be retained in service and his services cannot be terminated abruptly without any notice. This requirement is not mandatory in case of a probationer, especially when his services are terminated by an innocuous order, which does not cast any stigma on him. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner was terminated from service during the period of probation. Therefore, there was no requirement to hold a regular departmental enquiry. The impugned order also does not cast any stigma. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree.