Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this writ petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure-VIII), whereby his services from the post of Development Officer Grade I have been terminated. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant on temporary basis vide order dated 27.05.1975 and was later on appointed as Assistant on probation vide order dated 28.05.1976 (Annexure II) and after completion of his satisfactory probationary period, he was confirmed on the post vide order dated 28.01.1977 (Annexure III) w.e.f. 012.1976. While he was holding substantive post of Assistant in respondent Insurance Company, which is statutory authority and subsidiary of General Insurance Company of India, petitioner participated in process of selection for marketing training (development officer) in pursuance to advertisement published in Rajasthan Patrika daily of 21.09.1987 issued by respondent Company and after going through process of selection, he was appointed as Development Officer Grade I in whole time employment on probation initially for two years vide order dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V) on terms and conditions referred to therein - according to which conversion to the cadre of Development Officer will be effective from actual date, he reports for duty and will be governed by General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay scales and Service Conditions of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 ("1976 Scheme") as amended from time as far as applicable to probationary officers and will be considered for confirmation on fulfillment of conditions of appointment. His performance during probation was not found satisfactory and one more opportunity was provided to improve, and his probation was extended for one year further vide order dated 22.02.1991 (Annexure VI) which was given effect to from 16.08.1990, and finally because of unsatisfactory performance, services were terminated in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment vide order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure 8). Thereupon through his counsel, petitioner served notice of demand for justice to the respondents Annexure IX and that too was also rejected vide communication dated 212.1991 (Annexure XII). Hence, this petition. 3. Thereupon through his counsel, petitioner served notice of demand for justice to the respondents Annexure IX and that too was also rejected vide communication dated 212.1991 (Annexure XII). Hence, this petition. 3. Ms Anupma Chaturvedi, Counsel for petitioner urged that procedure as provided in Para 11 of 1976 Scheme as amended vide notification dated 13.02.1987 which postulates about Cost Control ration, was not followed by respondents while taking impugned decision terminating services vide order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure VIII) which provides that if cost ratio for a particular year exceeded the stipulated limits, the non-core allowances payable to development officer in the following performance year shall be reduced to the extent of the amount by which his cost ratio exceeded the stipulated limits during the year under review, and if cost ratio is in excess of stipulated limit for second performance year in succession, a letter of warning can be issued and if it is repeated in third or subsequent performance years in succession, his non-core allowance shall continue to be reduced in the following years to bring his cost ratio within stipulated limits and if there is no non-core allowance to be reduced, he shall be liable to decrements in basic pay and such procedure provided in Para 11(3) of 1976 Scheme before taking decision of terminating petitioners services, has not been followed and its non-compliance vitiates very action of respondents. 4. Ms Chaturvedi further submitted that in view of letter dated 21.06.1989 (Annexure-X) which was applicable only on clerical staff converted as Development Officers, during 2nd year of probation, no targets remains fixed for convertees and they were only to satisfy the cost norms and in view of relaxation granted to converted development officers, services of petitioner could not have been terminated. 5. Ms. Chaturvedi also urged that before taking impugned decision of terminating petitioners services, full opportunity was not afforded to fulfill the targets in extending period of probation, which he was otherwise entitled to, under the extended period of services. 6. The petitioner has further questioned legality of condition No. 1 stipulated in the order of appointment dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V) to the effect that from the date of conversion, he would not retain any lien on clerical post, which according to him, is void being opposed to public policy, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. 7. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and has submitted that petitioner has accepted terms and conditions on which he was appointed to the post of Development Officer vide order dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V), and once he joined in pursuance thereof , he cannot be permitted to question the same at later stage. It has also been urged that petitioner being probationer his services are to be regulated as per terms and conditions of his appointed, to which he has consented for. It has also been submitted that the 1976 Scheme duly amended vide notification dated 13.02.1987 does not regulate services of convertee development officer and the 1976 Scheme only regulates pay scale, certain allowances, provident fund, gratuity, leave, LTC, admissible to the employees covered under the Scheme and for maintaining costs ratio by development officers. But fitness of probationer for his retention in service is not regulated under 1976 Scheme amended from time to time. 8. Shri Shah further urged that much opportunity was afforded to petitioner to improve his work performance by serving notices (Annexures R-1 to R-4) from time to time during period of probation; and his performance while working as development officer was much below norms fixed as is evident from documents (Annexures R-5 to R-13) and because of unsatisfactory service, the decision was taken to terminate his services, wherein no illegality has been committed, and while taking decision, opportunity of hearing was not required to be afforded, and the decision is in consonance and in accordance with law, and with due compliance of principles of natural justice. 9. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and pondered over material on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner initially joined services of respondent Organization as Assistant and after going through regular selection process and after satisfactory completion of probation, he was confirmed as Assistant w.e.f. 012.1976 vide order dated 28.01.1977; and while substantively holding the post of Assistant, he appeared in process of selection for the post of Development Officer, and was selected and appointed on probation on terms and conditions stipulated in order of appointment dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V). During period of probation for two years, as is evident from documents placed by respondents (Annexures R-1 to R-4), opportunity was afforded to him, and even at the time when matter came up for consideration of his confirmation/extension of service, it was opined by competent authority pointing out reasons and justification for which decision was taken for extension of his service vide order dated 22.02.1991 (Annexure VI), and when he failed to show improvement in performance of his work, impugned decision was taken in terminating his services vide order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure VIII). 10. If an appointment is made on probation, it presupposes that the conduct, performance, ability and capacity of the employee concerned have to be watched and examined during the period of probation. He is to be confirmed after expiry of probation only when is service during period of probation is found to be satisfactory and he is considered to be suitable for the post against which he has been appointed. 11. The Apex Court in Purshottam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 and Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1974 (2) SCC 831 , while examining case of probationer, held that services of an appointee to permanent post on probation can be terminated or dispensed with during or at the end of period of probation because the appointee does not acquire any right to hold or continue to hold such a post during period of probation. It was further observed that period of probation is intended to assess work of probationer, whether it is satisfactory and whether appointee is suitable for the post and competent authority may come to the conclusion that probationer is unsuitable for the job and must be discharged on account of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or other similar grounds not involving moral turpitude and no punishment is involved in such a situation. It has also been considered in recent decision by Apex Court in Registrar High Court of Gujarat vs. C.G. Sharma, 2005 (1) SCC 132 . 12. It has also been considered in recent decision by Apex Court in Registrar High Court of Gujarat vs. C.G. Sharma, 2005 (1) SCC 132 . 12. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that while petitioner was on probation, adequate material has been placed by respondents on record to justify that opportunity was afforded to improve his work performance and probation was extended vide order dated 22.02.1991 (Annexure VI) with a clear stipulation to improve performance during extended period of probation. Even otherwise also, petitioner has no right to hold the post and if employer is not satisfied with his services rendered by probationer without imputation of allegations, services can be dispensed with by passing order of termination simpliciter because of his unsatisfactory services and in such circumstances, I find no error in the decision taken of impugned termination videorder dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure III). 10.13. Next submission made by petitioner that procedure provided in Para 11 of 1976 Scheme has not been followed by respondent before terminating his services, in my opinion, is of no substance. The petitioner being probationer and respondents when not satisfied with his performance, for which adequate material has been placed on record and they are competent to take independent decision, and if one of reasons has been stated in order of termination with regard to not maintaining costs control norms or ratio, normally that cannot be considered to be only basis for taking decision of termination, and in my opinion, Para 11 of 1976 Scheme will not be of any help to petitioner while examining services as probationer on the post of development officer qua probationer convertee. 114. Next submission of petitioner that if at all services were found to be unsatisfactory or respondents were not satisfied with services rendered by probationer while holding post of Development Officer, he being substantive appointee on lower post of Assistant, is entitled to be repatriated or reverted back to his substantive post, over which he had lien, and his services cannot be terminated and Condition No. 1 incorporated in order of his appointment as Development Officer, dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V) is in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India. Admittedly, while holding substantive post of Assistant, petitioner applied for appointment on higher post in same organization and certainly everyone expects of better further and prospects and in such circumstances if he has submitted application for consideration of appointment and despite a precise provision made in Clause (8) of Para 11 of 1976 Scheme, which reads as under:- "(8) Any development officer whose services are liable to be terminated under this paragraph may, on his specific request, be appointed as clerical staff on such terms as may be decided by the Chairman of the Corporation if he is eligible and considered suitable and subject to the condition that (1) he is at least 45 years of age but has not completed 55 years of age and has put in atleast 15 years service as Development Officer; or (ii) there are grounds of individual extenuating circumstances such as illness, injury or disablement." respondent corporation contrarily put Condition (1), " from the date of your conversion you shall have no lien on clerical post held by you until then", while offering appointment as Development Officer on probation vide order dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V). 15. Under Para 11 of 1976 Scheme as amended by notification dated 13.02.1987, its Clause (8) clearly postulates if services of development officer are terminated, he may make specific request and can be appointed in the cadre of Clerical staff on such terms and conditions as decided by Chairman of respondent Corporation. 16. Thus, viewed, in the light of Para 11(8) of 1976 Scheme, if development officer fails to maintain standard as laid down for maintenance of costs control ratio, and has not been able to show potentiality while working in Organization as Development Officer yet he cannot be ousted from the employment, and his request can be considered for appointment in the cadre of clerical staff on the condition as the Chairman may decide appropriately in particular case. 17. But, so far as present case is concerned admittedly petitioner was otherwise holding substantive post of Assistant, on which he was regularly selected and after satisfactory completion of probation, was confirmed vide order dated 28.06.1977 (Annexure III) w.e.f. 012.1976, certainly he has better right in claiming repatriation or reversion on his substantive post of Assistant. 17. But, so far as present case is concerned admittedly petitioner was otherwise holding substantive post of Assistant, on which he was regularly selected and after satisfactory completion of probation, was confirmed vide order dated 28.06.1977 (Annexure III) w.e.f. 012.1976, certainly he has better right in claiming repatriation or reversion on his substantive post of Assistant. In my opinion, termination of his lien from substantive post of Assistant is in violation of Para 11(8) of 1976 Scheme so also of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. Order dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure VIII) terminating services of petitioner from the post of Development Officer is upheld but Condition (1) incorporated in order of appointment dated 08.08.1988 (Annexure V) as probationary Development Officer is hereby set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service on substantive post of Assistant with consequential benefits; however, he will not be entitled for pecuniary benefits towards arrears of pay for intervening period till date, but will be entitled for notional fixation in pay scale of Assistant. All exercise so as to comply with aforesaid direction be made within two months from today. No order as to costs.