J&K&L High Court Gives Two FCI Employees Last Chance To Save Jobs After Failing Mandatory Hindi Typing Test

The Court held that the employees had been “hard done by” as they were given only a couple of days to prepare for the test, and directed that they be given at least one month's time to prepare for the fresh test. The Court further held that the Corporation is empowered under Regulation 91 of the Staff Regulations to issue circulars prescribing such tests for confirmation of probation.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging orders issued by the Food Corporation of India, whereby the petitioners were discharged from service with immediate effect on payment of pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period of thirty days. The petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Grade-III (Hindi), had failed to qualify the Hindi typing test conducted during their probation period.

The petition was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who observed,

“However, it appears that the petitioners have been hard done by the act of the respondents in holding the Hindi typing test without giving them adequate opportunity to prepare for the said test. Only a couple of days have been given to the petitioners to prepare for the test, as a result of which, they have been unable to qualify the test.”

Background

The Food Corporation of India issued an advertisement notice in September 2022 inviting applications for various posts, including Assistant Grade-III (Hindi). The advertisement stipulated that Hindi typing at a speed of 30 words per minute would be tested during the period of probation, and confirmation would be subject to qualifying the prescribed typing test. The petitioners qualified the selection process and were appointed, submitting their joining reports in 2024 and 2025.

The period of probation of one year was completed by the petitioners, but their probation was neither extended nor were they discharged. Subsequently, the Assistant General Manager conveyed to them that they had to appear in a Hindi typing test scheduled for 05.05.2026. The communications were received by the petitioners on 01.05.2026, and they appeared for the test on 05.05.2026. Having failed, they were given a second chance on 25.05.2026, which they again failed to clear. Consequently, they were discharged from service.

The petitioners contended that Regulation 15 of the Staff Regulations did not provide for passing any Hindi typing test for confirmation, and therefore, the incorporation of the said condition in the advertisement notice was contrary to the Regulation.

It was argued that the circular providing for the typing test was never published in the Gazette and lacked the sanction of the Central Government, thus having no binding force. It was further contended that the discharge orders were passed much after the completion of the one-year probation period, and there was no report that their performance was below the benchmark.

The respondents contended that the advertisement notice specifically stipulated the typing test as a condition for confirmation, and the petitioners, without raising any objection, participated in the process and accepted the appointment.

It was submitted that the petitioners were afforded adequate opportunities to qualify the test but failed, and since the discharge orders did not cast any stigma, there was no need to issue prior notice.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that while the Staff Regulations prescribed the qualifications for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Hindi), the advertisement notice stipulated the Hindi typing test as a condition for confirmation.

The Court noted that Regulation 15 of the Staff Regulations deals with probation, and during the period of probation, an employee is liable to be discharged from service without assigning any reason by giving 30 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof.

The Court examined the circulars issued by the Corporation, including the one dated 19.05.2023, which provided that an employee will be deemed to have successfully completed the probation period if no order confirming, discharging or reverting the employee is issued within eight weeks after the expiry of double the normal period of prescribed probation.

The Court noted that Clause 9 of the circular provided for the extension of probation if a probationer had not passed the requisite departmental examinations prescribed for proficiency in Hindi.

The Court held that Regulation 91 of the Staff Regulations vests the Board of Directors with the residual power to issue general instructions not inconsistent with the Act and Rules, to remove any doubt, difficulty, lacuna, inconsistency or anomaly. The Court held,

“It is in the exercise of the aforesaid power that the Board of Directors of Food Corporation of India has issued circulars dated 19.05.2023 and 23.08.2024.”

The Court further held,

“Having regard to the fact that the test prescribed for confirmation of AG- III (Hindi) candidates is intended to test their skills in translation from English to Hindi and vice- versa, it cannot be stated that the same is extraneous to the discharge of functions by the candidates selected as AG- III (Hindi).”

The Court rejected the contention that the petitioners could not be discharged without notice, holding that because their probation period was not specifically confirmed, they were deemed to be on probation, and a probationer is not entitled to any prior notice before discharge.

The Court also held that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process and the typing test without any demur, could not turn around and challenge the condition.

However, finding that the petitioners were not given adequate time to prepare for the test, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions. The Court directed that the petitioners be permitted one last chance to appear in the Hindi typing test, with at least one month's time to prepare.

The impugned orders discharging them were directed to remain in abeyance till the fresh test was held. If the petitioners qualified, the respondents were directed to withdraw the discharge orders and issue confirmation orders in their favour, subject to no other legal impediment. If they failed, the discharge orders would take effect.

Anjali Shaw and another v. Union of India and others