JUDGMENT : Affidavit-in-opposition is filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5 and reply thereto. 2. Mr. Hossain, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and on earlier occasion he had submitted his client has challenged office order dated 8/10th November, 2017 by which Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering & Technology (GKCIET), Malda has terminated his allegedly probationary service with effect from that date. His first submission was that his client was appointed in the year 2013 and probationary period was of two years after which he is deemed to have been confirmed. He next referred to rules regarding probation and confirmation appearing in annexure to office memorandum dated 21st July, 2014 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) (DOPT) to submit, even a probationer is entitled to be given an opportunity before taking drastic step of discharge. He submitted, so far as favourable Police Verification Record (PVR) requirement is concerned, his client had duly disclosed. He referred to disclosures made by his client, as required, at pages 34, 35 and 39 of the writ petition. He demonstrated, his client had disclosed pendency of a criminal case against him in connection with which he was arrested on 4th August, 2009 and granted bail on same day. According to him, indisputably this information was with his employer when it granted probationary service. He then referred to pages 51 and 52 of the writ petition, to work order dated 19th June, 2017 to show, the same was issued by Registrar, Mentor Institute in Durgapur and signed by him only as holder of the post in which he was appointed probationer. He pointed out, Deputy Registrar (Finance & Accounts), NIT, Durgapur had also signed. So far as absence without leave allegation is concerned he referred to paragraph 15 (c) of the writ petition and submitted, his client had taken leave upon intimation which cannot be said to be unauthorized. 3. Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Institute and on earlier occasion had submitted the first allegation is regarding involvement in a police case dated 5th September, 2015. He submitted, this was after his appointment. On having created unrest in the Institute, students lodged complaint against him. That is why the case was started. 3. Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Institute and on earlier occasion had submitted the first allegation is regarding involvement in a police case dated 5th September, 2015. He submitted, this was after his appointment. On having created unrest in the Institute, students lodged complaint against him. That is why the case was started. Today he relies upon page 30 of affidavit-in-opposition of the Institute and submits, this report was considered by Governing Body pursuant to which resolution was taken to terminate petitioner’s probationary service. 4. Probationary service gives right to employer to assess competence, efficiency and suitability of probationer, whether to be appointed to the post. Till before appointment, probationer does not have any right to the post. So far as first allegation is concerned, pre-requisite of PVR appears to have been in favour of petitioner since disclosure was made of pending case and other information, acting upon which the Institute appointed him. To find unsuitability on a police case subsequent to PVR for to be relied upon as a pre-requisite of PVR not met and that too without giving opportunity to petitioner to explain, is something that does not appeal to this Court. A pre-requisite cannot relate to a subsequent event. 5. Conspicuously absent from contents of impugned office order is resolution of Governing Body, as informed to petitioner, regarding reason for termination of his probationary service as based on assessment of his competence, efficiency or suitability. Law is settled regarding this aspect of service. In some cases probationer not given any intimation regarding competence, efficiency or suitability so as to improve himself or herself has also resulted in interference by Court. Question whether petitioner stood automatically confirmed is however not gone into in adjudicating challenge to impugned letter of termination in view of circumstances discussed above. 6. For reasons aforesaid, impugned order is set aside. Writ petition is allowed as above. 7. Mr. Jahan prays for stay of operation of this order. Prayer is considered and rejected.