So those who had not served probation may be sacked lawfully.” His assertion highlights the fundamental principle in both Human Resource Management and legal frameworks regarding probationary employees.
In many employment settings, probationary periods serve as a trial phase where employers evaluate the suitability of new hires. During this period, both the employer and the employee retain the flexibility to terminate the engagement without the usual legal constraints associated with permanent contracts.
Bentil’s position reinforces that such dismissals do not breach any legal provisions, as probationary employees have not attained full employment rights.
Furthermore, last-minute appointments, particularly in government, often draw scrutiny as they are perceived as political maneuvers rather than genuine efforts to strengthen institutions.
While it is not inherently wrong to make such appointments, it is equally justifiable to revoke them if they do not align with the priorities of a new administration.
The likelihood of these appointees winning in court is slim. “I sincerely don’t think those on probation will win in court,” Bentil stated unequivocally. Courts often uphold the principle that probationary employment does not guarantee permanence.
Any legal challenges from dismissed appointees may struggle to prove wrongful termination unless procedural irregularities can be demonstrated.
Ultimately, from a legal and HR standpoint, the government is within its rights to revoke appointments that were made in the final hours of a preceding administration.
Such moves are not unprecedented, and courts have historically upheld similar decisions based on the doctrine of governance continuity and administrative discretion.
https://web.facebook.com/share/p/19hu4R3k2T/