NUML probationer case: FCC says fair opportunity must be afforded before service termination

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that where the services of a ‘probationer’ are terminated on account of “unsatisfactory performance”, the employee must be afforded a fair opportunity to explain his position.

The judgment, authored by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, said that where the services of a probationer are terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work or performance, such termination does not ordinarily amount to dismissal or removal from service, as it is regarded as termination in accordance with the terms of appointment or the applicable rules.

It, however, said, where the termination is founded upon misconduct, it assumes the character of removal or dismissal and, particularly where the order carries a stigma capable of adversely affecting the employee’s career, the constitutional safeguards become applicable, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and, where required, a proper inquiry.

The judgment further said: “Where the services of a probationer are brought to an end on account of unsatisfactory performance, the employer cannot, merely by using the expression “unsatisfactory performance”, convert a stigmatic or punitive termination into a termination simpliciter. The probationer therefore must be afforded a fair opportunity to clarify his position regarding the unsatisfactory performance attributed to him.”

A judgment of the FCC bench headed by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan heard an appeal of the Director General of the National University of Modern Languages (NUML) against the verdict of the Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court.

The respondent (Rahat Mehmood) was selected for the post of Assistant Director (Academics) BPS-17 through a competitive selection process at NUML Regional Campus, Quetta. His appointment was subject to the condition that his probation period was for one year, which could be terminated without assigning any reason.

Under clause-C of the condition, such termination could be on a notice of one month’s pay in lieu thereof from either side without assigning any reason. On account of unsatisfactory performance during the probation period, the service of the respondent was terminated, and he was paid one month’s salary instead of notice period, which was assailed before the BHC.

The High Court allowed the respondent’s petition and set aside the termination notification dated 12-09-2025, and he was reinstated into service forthwith with the continuity of service.

The FCC judgment noted that according to the record the respondent’s services were dispensed with during the last month of his probationary period. It further observed that in the present case, the right guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution, 1973, does not appear to have been violated so as to warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Likewise, no element of discrimination attracting Article 25 of the Constitution was established by the respondent.

The respondent claimed that he could not be treated as a contractual employee and that his claim to regular appointment could not be denied.

The judgment said: “A probationer is a person appointed against a substantive vacant post who remains on probation for the prescribed period, which may extend to a maximum of two years. Where his work and performance during the probationary period remain unsatisfactory, his services may be dispensed with even before expiry of the prescribed period. During probation, although holding a civil post, he remains a temporary employee and is subject to the obligations applicable to a person in service, including obedience to lawful orders, observance of official hours and abstention from malpractice. The purpose of prescribing a probationary period is to enable the employer to assess whether the probationer possesses the capability, suitability and potential to make a satisfactory career in the service and whether his continued engagement would serve the interests of the employer.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026