and with him make appropriate changes in the standards.
(f) While holding management positions, insure that, for employees in watchstanding positions and similar position in which an employee may have different immediate supervisors from day to day, the number of supervisors is kept to a minimum. Management is encouraged to assign one supervisor to whom the employee looks for primary guidance within this program even though he may have several immediate supervisors in the course of a relatively short period."
The language of these guidelines is commanding; their formulation official. There can be no doubt from their face and from the legislative history of the authority upon which they are predicated that they are mandatory.
Under Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S. 268, 89 S. Ct. 518, 21 L. Ed. 2d 474, they must be followed.
The plaintiff has presented facts indicating they were not followed. He stated in his affidavit that he was given little or no supervision, explanation or introduction to his work and that his supervisor was frequently absent during the critical period. It is apparent that the thrust of his superiors criticism was that he lacked government-style writing skills. Significantly, he was not permitted to take the FAA training course in writing. A review of the memoranda of the conferences which were held among plaintiff and his superiors, taken in the light most favorable to the Government, even though they are self-serving and not attested to, indicates that they fell far short of the training and supervision contemplated by the regulations.
The Government argues that all procedural rights were accorded the plaintiff and that for the Court to inquire further would constitute an improper imposition on the agency officials of the Court's judgment as to the plaintiff's job qualifications.
Generally the Court agrees.
The Government draws from this, however, the conclusion that where an employee is discharged during the probationary period for the announced reason that he lacks basic skills, the discharge cannot be arbitrary and capricious and cannot be reviewed. The error in this conclusion is that the agency has materially qualified its position by ordering that supervisors will follow particular procedures in the training and assistance of employees on new assignments.
These procedures must be followed and may be reviewed by the Court. An administrator may not pick and choose among those regulations he is instructed to follow. If a discharge is effected without strict observance of applicable regulations, that discharge is unlawful.
In this case, it appears that the plaintiff was not afforded the supervisory training required by the regulations. Accordingly, it is by the Court this 4th day of March, 1969.
Ordered that the motion of the Government for summary judgment be and it is denied, and it is further
Ordered that the motion of the plaintiff be and it is granted.