JUDGMENT Dr. B. R. SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, who was working as a Probationary Development Officer under the New India Assurance Company Ltd., has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 26.07.1996 passed by the Regional Manager vide Annexure-11, whereby he has been terminated from service by giving one month’s notice. 2.The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the New India Assurance Company Ltd., hereinafter to be referred to as “the Company” in short, issued an advertisement in the year 1989 for Special Drive recruitment for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for recruitment of Marketing Trainees. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner applied for the same and by following a due process of selection, he was duly selected for the post of Marketing Trainee and thereafter had undergone the training for two months under the company at Calcutta. On completion of the said training he had appeared at the Inspector’s Examination conducted by the company, where he came out successful and became eligible to be appointed as Probationary Development Officer, Grade-II. Accordingly, appointment letter was issued on 09.03.1990, vide Anexure-1, pursuant to which he joined in service on 21.03.1990. as per the terms of appointment in Annexure-1, the petitioner has to fulfill the following requirements: “(4) During the probationary period you will be required to fulfill the following requirements:- (a)(i) You will have to procure a minimum premium income of Rs. 1.75 lacks during the first year and Rs. 2.00 lakhs during the second year. (ii) Out of the prescribed quota for each year, premium of at least of Rs. 10,000/- should be from Non-Traditional Business. (iii) Out of the total premium procured by you, at least 50% of targeted premium should be from Non-Traditional Business and/or Fire and/or Miscellaneous (other than Motor). (b)You will have to satisfactorily perform all duties and functions assigned to you as per Schedules ‘A’ & ‘B’ annexed to this letter and also carry out all such functions as may be assigned to you and obey all such orders and instructions as may be given orally or in writing by your superiors from time to time. (c)You will have strictly adhere to the norms of good conduct and general discipline. (c)You will have strictly adhere to the norms of good conduct and general discipline. “ Since the petitioner could not satisfy the conditions of appointment order as mentioned above by procuring business for the company and as the performance report of the petitioner during the period of probation including the extended period being less than the target fixed, his services have been terminated vide Annexure-11. 3.Mr. S.N. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the reasons for termination of services is contrary to the materials available on record inasmuch as in Annexure-1, against the target fixed, achievement has been mentioned, but while computing the achievements, reduction of motor premium amounting to Rs. 0.45 lakhs of Bhubaneswar Municipality and Puri Municipality has not been taken into consideration. If the said amount would have been taken into consideration, the petitioner would have achieved the target during the probation period. The petitioner furnished the department wise premium figures during the period of probation from 20th September, 1990 to 20th September, 1992 in Annexure-16 as against Rs. 1.75 lakhs target, the total figure has been indicated as Rs. 1.10 and the said figure has been shown after excluding Rs. 0.45 lakhs procured from motor business and also a sum of Rs. 57,500/- towards additional supplementary premium during the period from 21.03.1992 to 21.08.1992 vide Annexure-18 has not been taken into consideration while computing the business during the probation period. If that total amount would be taken into consideration, i.e. Rs. 1.10 lakhs+Rs. 0.45 lakhs +Rs. 57,500/-, then in that case that total achievement would be Rs. 2,12,500/-, which is much above the target fixed, i.e. Rs. 1.75 lakhs. Without considering the materials abailable on record, the service of the petitioner has been terminated vide Annexure-11, which is an out-come of total non-application of mind by the authorities. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in Ram Saran Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1967 SLR (SC), 771, Union of India and others v. Mahaveer C.Singhvi, AIR 2010 SC 3493 and Pradip Kumar v. Union of India and others, 2013 AIR SCW 294. 4.Mr. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in Ram Saran Dass v. The State of Punjab, 1967 SLR (SC), 771, Union of India and others v. Mahaveer C.Singhvi, AIR 2010 SC 3493 and Pradip Kumar v. Union of India and others, 2013 AIR SCW 294. 4.Mr. S.Das, learned counsel appearing for the Company strenuously urged that since the petitioner has not achieved his target as per the terms of appointment, the authorities are wholly and fully justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. In order to substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgments in M.Venugopal v. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Andhara Pradesh and another, AIR 1994 SC 1343 , and Hindu Ch. Minz v. CMD, NIA Co. Ltd. & others, O.J.C. No. 4441 of 1995 disposed of on 5.7.1996. 5.On the basis of the facts pleaded above, the petitioner having been selected as Probationary Development Officer was issued with appointment letter pursuant to Annexure-1 fixing the conditions stipulated therein. As per the conditions stipulated therein, the petitioner has to procure the business for the Company to the tune of Rs. 1.75 lakhs in the year 1991-92, but the petitioner’s services have been terminated on the ground that he has not achieved the target as fixed in his terms of appointment. On perusal of the record, it appears that in Annexure-11 though the target was fixed at Rs. 1.75 lakhs in between 21.03.1990 to 20.03.1991, the petitioner has shown the achievement of Rs. 15,000/- and in between 21.03.1991 to 20.03.1992 as against the target of Rs. 2 lakhs, the petitioner has shown achievement of Rs. 78,500/-. The figures shown in the letter of termination in Annexure-11 are contrary to the records itself in view of the fact that during the probation period the department-wise premium figure of the petitioner during the period from 20.09.1991 to 20.09.1992 has been prepared, which has been annexed as Annexure-16 to the writ application. The total figure has been shown as Rs. 1.10 lakhs, but such figure has been shown after deduction of motor premium amounting to Rs. 0.45 lakhs of Bhubaneswar Municipality and Puri Municipality from motor business. In Annexure-18 the addition of supplementary premium figure for the period from21.03.1992 to 31.08.1992 for Rs. 57,500/- has not been taken into consideration. The total figure has been shown as Rs. 1.10 lakhs, but such figure has been shown after deduction of motor premium amounting to Rs. 0.45 lakhs of Bhubaneswar Municipality and Puri Municipality from motor business. In Annexure-18 the addition of supplementary premium figure for the period from21.03.1992 to 31.08.1992 for Rs. 57,500/- has not been taken into consideration. If both the amounts would be taken into consideration, namely, the deduction amount of Rs. 0.45 lakhs procured from motor business and Rs. 57,500/- procured during 21.03.1992 to 31.08.1992 along with the total figure of Rs. 1.10 lakhs, i.e., the total premium amount shown for the period from 20.09.1991 to 20.09.1992, would come to Rs. 1.10 lakhs +Rs. 0.45 lakhs + Rs. 57.500/-=Rs/ 2,12.500/-, which is much higher than that of the target to be achieved during the probation period as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter in Annexure-1. But the authorities while considering the case of the petitioner has excluded this amount and alleged that the petitioner has not achieved the target. In course of hearing, when query was made by the Court, no justifiable reason has been shown by explaining the position in any of the affidavits filed by the company nor has any satisfactory reply been received from the learned counsel appearing for the Company. In absence of any cogent reasons, if the petitioner has shown the business more than the target fixed, there is no valid and justifiable reason available with the Opp.party Corporation to terminate his service. There is no dispute that during the probation period, the petitioner has no right to the post and his engagement is subject to the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment in Annexure-11. If the petitioner has achieved the target and the same has not been taken into consideration while making computation and an abstract figure has been shown in the order of termination, that ipso facto cannot be the basis to deny the petitioner continuance in service. On perusal of Annexure-16 and 18, it is made clear that those documents have been prepared by the authorities themselves. Therefore, while computing the benefits, the documents in Annexure-16 and 18 has not been taken into consideration and non-consideration of such documents and taking action contrary to the terms of engagement, the impugned order cannot sustain. On perusal of Annexure-16 and 18, it is made clear that those documents have been prepared by the authorities themselves. Therefore, while computing the benefits, the documents in Annexure-16 and 18 has not been taken into consideration and non-consideration of such documents and taking action contrary to the terms of engagement, the impugned order cannot sustain. The contentions raised in support of Annexure-16 and 18 having not been denied by the Opp.Party Company, in view of the ratio decided in Union of India and others v. Mahaveer C.Singhvi (supra) and Pradip Kumar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that applying the principles of doctrine of non-traverse, the same should be accepted and benefit should be extended to the petitioner. The reliance placed on M.Venugopal (supra) and Hindu Ch. Minz (supra) by the learned counsel for the Opp.Party-Corporation on the basis of the facts of the said case has no assistance to the present one. 6.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the order of termination issued in Annexure-11 on the ground that the petitioner has not achieved the target in terms of the engagement order is not justified. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination in Annexure-11 is quashed and the Opp.Party Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. Needless to say that since the petitioner has not rendered service for the period he was out of employment, he may not be entitled to get back wages. 7.The writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed in part.