Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ petition impugns the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 27.8.2012 whereby the Tribunal set aside the order of the Management/communication of the petitioner-school dated 16.6.2009 stating that the probation period will not stand extended and the services of the respondent No. 1, as a probationer in the petitioner-school will stand terminated.

2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a probationary teacher with the petitioner-school by letter dated 20.06.2007. Petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher. Para 1 of the appointment letter dated 20.06.2007 reads as under:

Yours faithfully, (SAIYID HAMID) SECRETARY HES TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

1. Terms of Engagement

a) Initially the Employee is engaged on a one year probation beginning from the date of joining the Hamdard Public School, which may be extended further by the Management for another one year.

b) One successful completion of the probationary period the Employee may be confirmed in writing, if found suitable. Unless and until the confirmation is given in writing by a specific order, the Employee will be deemed to continue on probation notwithstanding the expiry of the probationary period.

c) One month‟s notice on either side or salary in lieu thereof would be the condition for leaving/termination of service during the probationary period. The Management may terminate the Employee‟s service without assigning any reason during this period.

d) One having completed the probationary period and after confirmation, three months‟ notice on either side or three months‟ salary in lieu thereof for the purpose of leaving of termination of service. However, the discretionary power not to allow an Employee to leave the school during an academic year rests with the Management of the School."

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.