Khan's reply has given a happy end to the issue he raised. Not because it is in a way in tune with my view-point but it makes the decision of the management a perfect one enhancing its image in the eyes of employees on probation. Period of probation, as it is, is an acid test for any new employee whether he is a fresher or an already experienced candidate. It will, in my opinion, be more stressful for a fresher for he has to learn practical applications of what he studied in theory and understand the psychology of the work environment as well. In the other case too, lots of mental adjustments, whether he is willing or not, have to be made by the probationer due to the possible differences in work style and work culture. So, lapse in one way or the other is inevitable. Since evaluation is a process based mostly on subjective considerations of the authority concerned, error of judgement is always possible. That's how the clause permitting extension of the period of probation came to be in place.But, placing the underperforming probationer on a lower job for which he was not selected that too on reduced salary not only nullifies the original appointment but also tantamounts to depromotion which shall be equivalent to a punishment and a bad HR practice. Here, the elements of humane consideration or the meek acceptance of the poor employee are out of context in as much as the action of the management can be considered not only as a breach of contract but also as an act of impropriety. Coming again to Banerjee's presumptions, of course, it is true that no law explicitly prohibits general reduction in the salary of employees. But the reason for the reduction and the wilful concurrence of the employees matter much. At times of adversity beyond correction, as one among the measures of austerity to save the industry, general reduction of salaries of all employees with their consent is a universally accepted method of rehabilitation. It can not be applied to an individual case of inefficient employee on probation for it could be very well construed as an unfair HR practice of selecting the candidate for a higher post but confirming him on a lower one on the subjective presumption of his unsuitability for the job of his initial appointment..