Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Hamdard Public School vs Directorate Of Education & Anr. on 25 July, 2013

Anita Soharu Guleria vs Director Of Education& Ors. on 25 February, 2015

"3. On the basis of the admitted facts: in the form of various appointment letters and the termination letters which have been issued by the petitioner-school as detailed above; the provision of Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973; the judgment delivered by me in the case of Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. in W.P.(C) No.8652/2011 decided on 25.7.2013 interpreting Rule 105; and, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School Vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar and Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 472 read with Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs. GNCT & Ors. 147 (2008) DLT 729, the issues which arise, and on which counsel for the parties have been heard, are first as to whether the respondent No.1 at all can be said to only be a contractual employee in terms of the first contractual appointment letter dated 3.12.2007 or whether the employment of respondent No.1 since inception in the peculiar facts of this case would have a statutory favour in view of the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, and secondly as to whether the actions of the petitioner-school amount to over-reach the provision of Rule 105 and is, therefore, against the ratio not only of the categorical language of Rule 105 but also the ratio of the judgment passed by me in the case of Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. (supra). The following issues are, therefore, crystallized for decision by this Court:
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Pushpa Singh vs Director Of Education & Ors. on 9 March, 2015

Also on applying the ratio of Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. (supra) ordinarily a period of three years should be the maximum period of probation and when we take the total period of employment of the respondent no.1 with the petitioner-school i.e from 28.11.2007 to 10.6.2010 this period of probation comes to around three years and, therefore, I hold that there is nothing before me to hold that the period of probation should not ordinarily be taken to have been already completed when the termination letter dated 10.6.2010 was issued by the petitioner-school and which does not refer to any unsatisfactory services of the respondent no.1."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Army Public School & Anr. vs Narendra Singh Nain And Anr. on 30 August, 2013

In many statutory rules and rules of many organizations , there is provided a three year period of probation like in the case of Lawrence School (supra). Therefore, probation period undoubtedly can be of 3 years under Rule 105 because as already stated there is no outer limit of probation period provided. The question is that for how long beyond the third year can a period of probation continue. In my opinion, reasonable period will have to be dependent on the facts of each case including as to what is the post or nature of employment in question, what are the terms and conditions agreed to at the time of original appointment and subject of course to the same being in accordance with Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. The nature of job or duties to be performed by the teacher will also have to be kept in mind. It will also have to be kept in mind whether the teacher will be overage for similar employment if he/she is not confirmed. Keeping in mind all the relevant facts, probation period, except in exceptional cases, so far as a teacher is concerned, should not continue beyond a period of 5 years W.P.(C) Nos.1439/2013, 2176/2013 & 2535/2013 Page 17 of 25 from the first date of appointment. Even a period of 4/5 years has to be really in a very grave and exceptional case depending on the facts of that case. However, I do not express myself finally with respect to what should be a reasonable period between 3 to 5 years because Courts will necessarily examine that aspect in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. I am making these specific observations with respect to the maximum period of probation being ordinarily only of 5 years because in the absence of fixing an outer limit by the statute viz Rule 105, the entire purpose of a probation period and a probationary teacher being confirmed would be defeated by the machinations of the management of the schools in certain cases thus affecting education and bringing in of Article 21A in the Constitution. Therefore, I hold that the Rule 105 must be so interpreted that the reasonable period therein should ordinarily be around three years, should not extend beyond five years in most of the cases, and, in the rarest or rare cases, one more year upto 6 years may be considered. However again at the cost of repetition it is stated that six years period is being observed only as a most grave and rarest of rare circumstance in a case, and ordinarily, a probation period qua a teacher should not extend beyond/around three years which is a reasonable period, and as per the facts and circumstances of certain case, and which issues/decisions are of course justiciable before Courts the probation period can go up to 5/6 years as stated above."
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 31 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Tejbeer Singh vs Directorate Of Education And Ors. on 18 December, 2013

5. The writ petition in the present case has to be allowed in view of the ratios of the judgments in the cases of Hamdard Public School (supra) and Army Public School (supra). Applying the ratios of these cases since the respondent No.4-school has failed to show any administrative exigency or any temporary need for giving contractual appointment, appointment of the petitioner since inception will have to be treated as regular appointment and in any case permanent appointment on completion of contractual period which can be treated as the first probationary period inasmuch as there is nothing on record with respect to W.P.(C) No.5964/2010 page 3 of 11 petitioner's services not being satisfactory.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - V J Mehta - Full Document

St. Anthony???S Senior Secondary ... vs Radhika Sharma And Anr. on 10 September, 2013

In many statutory rules and rules of many organizations , there is provided a three year period of probation like in the case of Lawrence School (supra). Therefore, probation period undoubtedly can be of 3 years under Rule 105 because as already stated there is no outer limit of probation period provided. The question is that for how long beyond the third year can a period of probation continue. In my opinion, reasonable period will have to be dependent on the facts of each case including as to what is the post or nature of employment in question, what are the terms and conditions agreed to at the time of original appointment and subject of course to WPC 6548/2008 Page 8 of 19 the same being in accordance with Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. The nature of job or duties to be performed by the teacher will also have to be kept in mind. It will also have to be kept in mind whether the teacher will be overage for similar employment if he/she is not confirmed. Keeping in mind all the relevant facts, probation period, except in exceptional cases, so far as a teacher is concerned, should not continue beyond a period of 5 years from the first date of appointment. Even a period of 4/5 years has to be really in a very grave and exceptional case depending on the facts of that case. However, I do not express myself finally with respect to what should be a reasonable period between 3 to 5 years because Courts will necessarily examine that aspect in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. I am making these specific observations with respect to the maximum period of probation being ordinarily only of 5 years because in the absence of fixing an outer limit by the statute viz Rule 105, the entire purpose of a probation period and a probationary teacher being confirmed would be defeated by the machinations of the management of the schools in certain cases thus affecting education and bringing in of Article 21A in the Constitution. Therefore, I hold that the Rule 105 must be so interpreted that the reasonable period therein should ordinarily be around three years, should not extend beyond five years in most of the cases, and, in the rarest or rare cases, one more year upto 6 years may be considered. However again at the cost of repetition it is stated that six years period is being observed only as a most grave and rarest of rare circumstance in a case, and ordinarily, a probation period qua a teacher should not extend beyond/around three years which is a reasonable period, and as per the facts and circumstances of certain case, and which issues/decisions are of course justiciable before Courts the probation period can go up to 5/6 years as stated above."
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Shri Shiv Sharma vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr on 17 January, 2017

In my opinion, therefore, though the ratios of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Hamdard Public School (supra) and Army Public School (supra) will squarely apply for regularization of the petitioner from a period of three years after the petitioner was appointed to the respondent W.P.(C) No. 10398/2004 & 10400/2004 Page 11 of 14 no. 2/school, inasmuch as there is no dispute that there is a sanctioned post of PET, there was a vacancy in such sanctioned post and that the petitioner was in fact appointed by the Managing Committee of the respondent no. 2/school, however, the confirmation of the petitioner to the service as a PET of the respondent no. 2/school after three years of his appointment is subject to the orders of the approval which the respondent no.1/Directorate of Education will give in terms of Rule 98(2) proviso of the Delhi School Education Rules.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next