Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) The first proviso only uses the expression "by another year"

and not "by another one year" or "by another one year only" or "maximum by another year" i.e in the first proviso there is no outer limit of probationary period prescribed like there is none in the body of the main Sub-Rule 1.

(v) The first proviso can in a way be said to only deal with a minority school not requiring permission of the Director of Education, and the same does not concern other schools in Delhi.

12. Coming now to the facts of the present case, I have already reproduced the appointment letter above, and which not only does not contain a maximum period, but the same also requires a confirmation order. Since Rule 105 does not contain a maximum period of probation, and having held that the same can ordinarily be of three years, it cannot be said that probation period could not have been for a third year in this case. Respondent no.2 was terminated by non-stigmatic order of termination in the third year of appointment i.e in the third year of probation. Once I have held that in many organizations even three years of period of probation is provided, I do not think that in the facts of the present case, the petitioner-school was in any manner acting illegally in continuing the probationary period to the third year. As already stated the letter of appointment of the respondent no.2 specifically states that respondent no.2's probationary period will come to an end successfully only by a specific order of confirmation. Since the termination of the respondent no.2 is by a non-stigmatic order dated 1.10.2005, within the third year of probation, I am of the opinion that the services of respondent no. 2 were validly terminated during the period of probation. I may note that there is no challenge before me on behalf of the respondent no.2, and nor was there such a challenge by the respondent no.2 before the Tribunal, that the order of termination is not non-stigmatic. It is also not the case that the school-management has illegally, arbitrarily, vexatiously and malafidely not considered the respondent no.2 for confirmation in spite of satisfactory work."

"4. On 20th November 1995 the appellant was served with a letter informing him that his performance during the probationary period was "far from satisfactory" and that it had been observed that he lacked drive, imagination and initiative 'in the performance of his duties'. He was informed that, despite being told time and again to improve performance in the said areas, but with no effect. He was advised to improve "in order to enable us to consider your case for confirmation favourably". He was issued several such letters drawing his attention to the fact that his services left much to be desired. His probationary service came to be extended from time to time, the last such extension being granted till 9th April 1998. Finally, by the letter dated 7.4.1998 the petitioner was informed that his service was "unsatisfactory in the areas of drive, initiative, promptness and leadership"

17. The High Court has carefully considered all the circumstances placed before it and arrived at the conclusion that the respondent's work was under observation during the probationary period and that he was given repeated opportunities to improve his performance for which purpose his probation was extended from time to time. The fact that the authority did not find him fit for confirmation was also brought to his notice several times and yet he was given opportunities of improving by extending his probationary service. The High Court has correctly found that the letter dated 7.4.1998 was not punitive in nature and stated, albeit in prolix fashion, that the service of the appellant were unsatisfactory. The High Court points out, and we agree, that detailed reference to all other correspondence was not necessary, but it did not reflect any malice or bias. Finally, as this Court pointed out in P.N. Verma's case (supra) "a termination order which explicitly states what is implicit in every order of termination of a probationer's appointment, does not ipso facto become stigmatic" (underlining added)"