Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Head Master,Lawrence School,Lovedale vs Jayanthi Raghu & Anr on 16 March, 2012

Sh. Suresh Chander Gahlawat vs National Technical Research ... on 13 January, 2014

6If the order of appointment itself states that at the end of the period of probation.in the absence of any order to the contrary, the appointee will acquire a substantive right to the post even without an order of confirmation. In all other case, in the absence of such an order or in the absence of such a service rule, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give him such a right. Where after the period of probation an appointee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take is that by implication the period of probation has been extended, and it is not a correct proposition to state that an appointee should be deemed to be confirmed from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue after the end of the period of probation. Further, in the case of Lawrence School Vs. Jayanthi Raghu, (2012) 4 SCC 793 the following has been held:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 May, 2021

56. Reliance was placed by the Division Bench on several judgments of the Supreme Court, most of which have been alluded to above in the present judgment and are not being repeated to avoid prolixity, except to refer to the judgment in Head Master, Lawrence School, Lovedale vs. Jayanthi Raghu, (2012) 4 SCC 793 on which also the Division Bench placed reliance and the relevant para is as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 2 - J Singh - Full Document

Sri Niwas vs Mgt. Of M/S Le Meridien on 1 July, 2013

41. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that where the employer resorts to repeated extension of the probation period only with a view to exploit the workman, it may tantamount to an unfair labour practice. However, that is a matter to be examined in the facts of each case and that exercise shall be undertaken a little later. But mere extension of the probationary period would not raise a presumption against the employer - that the employer has resorted to an unfair labour practice. The decision in Head Master, Lawrence School Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu & Another, (supra) does not support the case of the petitioners in any way.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Manjeet Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 19 March, 2014

6If the order of appointment itself states that at the end of the period of probation.in the absence of any order to the contrary, the appointee will acquire a substantive right to the post even without an order of confirmation. In all other case, in the absence of such an order or in the absence of such a service rule, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give him such a right. Where after the period of probation an appointee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, the only possible view to take is that by implication the period of probation has been extended, and it is not a correct proposition to state that an appointee should be deemed to be confirmed from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue after the end of the period of probation. Further, in the case of Lawrence School Vs. Jayanthi Raghu, (2012) 4 SCC 793 the following has been held:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Shuman Mukherjee vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 30 October, 2013

48. However, there will be cases where not only such specific Rules, as noticed above, are absent but the Rules specifically prohibit extension of the period of probation or even specifically provide that upon expiry of that period he shall attain the status of a temporary or a confirmed employee. In such cases, again, two situations would rise: one, that he would attain the status of an employee being eligible for confirmation and second, that actually he will attain the status of a confirmed employee. The Courts have repeatedly held that it may not be possible to prescribe a straightjacket formula of universal implementation for all cases involving such questions. It will always depend upon the facts of a case and the relevant rules applicable to that service. Learned counsel has also relied on the Apex Court ruling in the case of Headmaster Lawrence School Lovedabel Vs. Jayanthi Raghu and Anr., 2012 (4) SCC 793, in Para-27 the following has been laid down:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

St. Thomas School vs Manish Kaushik & Anr. on 13 April, 2017

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 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 9 - Cited by 1 - V J Mehta - Full Document

S B Moharana vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 2 December, 2024

11. On perusal of the rules quoted above, we find that there is no such ex facie provision of deemed confirmation in absence of extension of the period of probation on completion of initial period of probation of an employee. Ld. Counsel for the applicant relied on 11 O.A.No. 260/00154 of 2017 the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Head Master, Lawrence School, Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu & Anr (supra) and we have also gone through the same. We find that, it was a case of employees of Lawrence School, who having been terminated during probation approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by stating that in absence of any extension of order of probation, they were deemed to have been confirmed and their termination without holding due procedure provided under the rules was bad in law. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras allowed the matter, which order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by observing as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Batuk Nath Pandey vs Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad ... on 14 February, 2020

As per that Rule a probationer stands confirmed consequent to an appointment being made by an order of the Appointing Authority. That order must come into existence at the end of the period of probation or extended period as the case may be. Rule 22 envisages the Appointing Authority making that order upon being satisfied that the probationer has satisfactorily completed training, his work and conduct during that period has been satisfactory, his integrity is certified and he is otherwise satisfied that he is fit for confirmation. When Rule 22 is read in its entirety, it is manifest that it clearly contemplates an application of mind by the Appointing Authority to the aspect of confirmation and thereafter making a positive order confirming the probationer in service. The law on the aforesaid subject was duly enunciated by the Supreme Court after noticing the line of decisions rendered on the subject in High Court of M.P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar6 and while reiterating the principles enunciated in that decision the Supreme Court in Lawrence School v. Jayanthi Raghu7 observed: -
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document

M/S Deccan Charters Private Limited vs Sarita Tiwari on 27 August, 2019

16. Substantially similar question arose in Head Master, Lawrence School Lovedale v. Jayanthi Raghu, AIR 2012 SC 1571 In that case, the first respondent i.e. Jayanthi Raghu was appointed on the post of Mistress with effect from 01.09.1993. It was stipulated in the letter of appointment that she would be on probation for a period of two years which may be extended for another one year, if necessary. In November, 1995, while she was working as a Mistress in the appellant's school, as alleged, she had received some amount from one Nathan. A meeting was convened on 09.09.1997 and in the W.P.(C) 3422/2014 Page 7 of 12 proceedings, certain facts were recorded. The said allegations though treated „stigmatic‟ by Ld. Single Judge, yet the Division Bench on a studied scrutiny of the factual scenario, opined that the same do not cast any „stigma‟. However, the Division Bench, concurred with the ultimate conclusion of the Ld. Single Judge on the basis that by virtue of the language employed in Rule 4.9 of the Rules of Lawrence School, Lovedale (Nilgiris), she had earned the status of a confirmed employee having satisfactorily completed the period of probation and, therefore, her services could not have been dispensed with without holding an enquiry.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - J R Midha - Full Document

Nitya Nand Sinha vs M/S Hl Promoters Private Limited And ... on 4 December, 2019

16. Substantially similar question arose in Head Master, Lawrence School Lovedale v. Jayanthi Raghu, AIR 2012 SC 1571 In that case, the first respondent i.e. Jayanthi Raghu was appointed on the post of Mistress with effect from 01.09.1993. It was stipulated in the letter of appointment that she would be on probation for a period of two years which may be extended for another one year, if necessary. In November, 1995, while she was working as a Mistress in the appellant's school, as alleged, she had received some amount from one Nathan. A meeting was convened on 09.09.1997 and in the proceedings, certain facts were recorded. The said allegations though treated 'stigmatic' by Ld. Single Judge, yet the Division Bench on a studied scrutiny of the factual scenario, opined that the same do not cast any 'stigma'. However, the Division Bench, concurred with the ultimate conclusion of the Ld. Single Judge on the basis that by virtue of the language employed in Rule 4.9 of the Rules of Lawrence School, Lovedale (Nilgiris), she had earned the status of a confirmed employee having satisfactorily completed the period of probation and, therefore, her services could not have been dispensed with without holding an enquiry.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next