WP(MD)/9057/2026 of C.N.S.Ramnath Babu Vs The Vice Chancellor on 13 October 2026

O R D E R

The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this petition are as under:- 1.1. The petitioner herein was appointed as ‘Assistant Professor’ in the Bharathidasan Institute of Management (hereinafter referred to as ‘BIM’ for short) on 12.03.2021, subject to certain terms and conditions. One such condition is that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years and will be confirmed only on satisfactory completion of probation. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the Institute on 16.04.2021. The said two- year period of probation was completed on 15.04.2023. However, it was on 17.07.2023, the sixth respondent issued proceedings stating that the petitioner has not satisfactorily completed the probation period and, hence, he was relieved permanently from the post of ‘Assistant Professor’ on the afternoon of 07.07.2023, while offering to pay three months’ notice pay. It was aggrieved by the said order dated 07.07.2023, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD) No.19133 of 2023. A Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the said writ petition in detail and, finally, vide order dated 02.11.2023, disposed of the said writ petition, setting aside the order dated 07.07.2023 on the ground that the Director of BIM is not the competent authority to issue the said proceedings and issued consequential directions. The said directions read as under: “53.In view of the same, this Court hereby quash the impugned order of termination and consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2023 on the ground of jurisdiction alone and thereafter, remand back the matter to the third respondent with the following directions:

(i) The third respondent is directed to place the case of the writ petitioner before the Board of Governors for appropriate action.

(ii) In case the Board of Governors decide to terminate the writ petitioner appropriate opportunity of hearing should be given to the writ petitioner to explain the allegations put forthwith against him by the third respondent along with supporting documents.

(iii) The Board of Governors while deciding the case of the writ petitioner should keep in mind the past professional experience of the writ petitioner, present age of the writ petitioner, family circumstances and future employment prospects of the writ petitioner. (iv)In case of arriving at conclusion to terminate the writ petitioner after giving him due opportunity in accordance with law, the order of termination should not be stigmatic.”

1.2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.11.2023, the sixth respondent filed W.A.(MD) No.16820 of 2023, and the said writ appeal came to be dismissed by the learned Division Bench by order dated 04.08.2025. However, the learned Division Bench observed that the writ petitioner has to be necessarily reinstated with all the benefits. It was aggrieved by the said order, the sixth respondent filed S.L.P.(C) No.30078 of 2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the same, setting aside the order of the learned Division Bench directing reinstatement while restoring the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.19133 of 2023 dated 02.11.2023. It was pursuant to the said order dated 02.11.2023 passed by this Court, the Board of Governors of BIM, Tiruchirappalli, passed a resolution terminating the probation of the petitioner and, consequently, the fourth respondent herein issued proceedings dated 25.02.2026, communicating the decision taken by the Board of Governors resolving not to continue the services of the petitioner beyond the probationary period, i.e., 07.07.2023. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 25.02.2026, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, raising various contentions.

1.3. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has filed an affidavit running into 75 pages and consisting of 157 paragraphs, in all running into 479 pages.

2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit running into 50 pages, along with supporting documents, contending that the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2026 are only a simple order of discharge simpliciter from probation/ termination of probation due to non-satisfactory completion of the probation period by the petitioner.

3. In response to the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has again filed a rejoinder affidavit running into 221 pages, along with several other documents in support of his contentions, in all running into 455 pages in Volume-I and 447 pages in Volume-II, which also includes complaints made to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell, etc.

4. Heard Mr.Sushil Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.K.Porkodi, learned Government Counsel appearing for the third respondent, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan and Mr.Md.Imran for Ajmal Associates, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7, and Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4, 5 and 10.

5. By now, it is well settled that termination of probation simpliciter is not amenable for judicial review, and confirmation or otherwise of any employee is always subject to satisfactory completion of probation by an employee. In the instant case, the petitioner was admittedly placed on probation for a period of two years and, on completion of the said two-year period by 15.04.2023, there was no order issued confirming the services of the petitioner and declaring that the petitioner has completed his probation period satisfactorily. However, it was on 07.07.2023, the proceedings were issued by the sixth respondent stating that the petitioner failed to complete the probation period satisfactorily and, accordingly, he was relieved from the post of ‘Assistant Professor’ of BIM, Tiruchirappalli.

6. The said order was challenged on various grounds, including on the ground that it is stigmatic and that the same was passed by an incompetent authority and also on the ground that, on completion of two years, the probation of the petitioner is deemed to have been declared and, therefore, after expiry of the said period, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person on probation, etc.

7. As already noted above, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 02.11.2023, came to the conclusion that the said proceedings dated 07.07.2023 issued by the sixth respondent is without any competency and directed the fourth respondent to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner and issued certain other directions, which are extracted hereinabove.

8. While holding so, vide order dated 02.11.2023, this Court also observed that though the writ petitioner was allowed to serve for a period of two months and 22 days, i.e., till 07.07.2023, beyond the period of two years’ probation, that has to be considered as extension of probation only but not as confirmation of his service in the post of ‘Assistant Professor’. However, the proceedings dated 07.07.2023 was held to be per se illegal, as the same were

issued by the sixth respondent, who has no competency. The relevant observations at paragraph 51 of the said order read as under: “51. …. In the instant case though the offer of appointment specifies the period of probation as two years unless explicitly confirmed by an order of Board of Governors of BIM, the writ petitioner's service shall not be deemed to be confirmed on completion of two years probation period. Though the writ petitioner was allowed to serve a period of two months 22 days till 07.07.2023 beyond the period of completion of probation of two years that could be considered as an extension of probation only not as confirmation of his service in the post of Assistant Professor but at the same time, the impugned orders are bad and per se illegal since the same has emanated from the desk of Director/third respondent contrary to the Service Rules of BIM as discussion supra.”

9. The said order dated 02.11.2023 was confirmed by the learned Division Bench in W.A (MD) No.16820 of 2023, vide order dated 04.08.2025, though with a slight modification directing reinstatement of the petitioner. However, the said order of the learned Division Bench was interfered with by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 31.10.2025 in S.L.P (C) No.30078 of 2025, and restored the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court has attained finality.

10. Once the continuation of the petitioner in service beyond the two years’ period of probation is held to be an extension of probation but not as deemed confirmation of probation, and by virtue of the finality attained for the said order, the petitioner can be treated as a probationer only till 07.07.2023. Though an attempt was made to say that the probation of the petitioner in the sixth respondent Institute is governed by the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2018 read with the Master Circular on probation and confirmation of Central services issued in O.M.No.28020/3/2018-Estt.(C), dated 11.03.2019, none of the provisions contained therein provide for any deemed confirmation of probation though the probation is required to be confirmed if found satisfactory on expiry of the tenure of probation. In the absence of any such provision providing for deemed confirmation of probation, the petitioner cannot claim that his probation was deemed to have been completed satisfactorily.

11. Then, coming to the ground raised on the basis that the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2026 has not been passed in terms of the order dated

02.11.2023 passed by this Court, this Court, having perused the said proceedings dated 25.02.2026 issued by the sixth respondent herein, does not find anything to say that the same is a stigmatic in nature. However, the elaborate reasoning for issuing the impugned proceedings are found in the minutes of the 102nd meeting of the Board of Governors of BIM, Tiruchirapalli, held on 17.02.2026, placed at Page No.222 of Volume-I of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, which would disclose that the fourth respondent has taken into consideration all the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 02.11.2023 and complied with the same.

12. In the light of the above, considering the fact that the petitioner, having accepted the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P (MD) No.19133 of 2023, it is not open for him to contend that his probation is deemed to have been confirmed on completion of two years’ of probation period on whatsoever ground. The said finding recorded by this Court inter se parties is binding on the petitioner.

13. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated 25.02.2026, which is an order terminating the probation simpliciter, does not warrant any interference by this Court and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

14. Before parting with the case, this Court is of the firm view that the manner in which the litigation is being prosecuted by the petitioner by bringing in various irrelevant factors and in filing an affidavit running into 75 pages in a matter of simple case of discharge of a probationer thereby consuming considerable judicial time of this Court, is required to be deprecated and, in the normal course, this Court would have imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner, but considering the fact that the petitioner is presently unemployed from 07.07.2023, and have been prosecuting the litigation continuously, this Court is refraining itself from imposing any costs on the petitioner for the present. The petitioner is hereby cautioned to be cautious in future if he intends to approach any legal forum seeking any remedy. 13.10.2026 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

To

1. The Vice Chancellor, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirapalli – 620 024.

2. The Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirapalli – 620 024.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

4. The Chairman Board of Governors, Bharathidasan Institute of Management, MHD Campus, BHEL Complex, Tiruchirapalli – 620 014.

5. The Director, Bharathidasan Institute of Management, MHD Campus, BHEL Complex, Tiruchirapalli – 620 014.

6. Members of the Board of Governors, Bharathidasan Institute of Management, MHD Campus, BHEL Complex, Tiruchirapalli – 620 014.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. skr Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P (MD) No.9057 of 2026 13.10.2026