Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 98 (2.97 seconds)
Documents citing Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Sec. ... vs J.A.J. Vasu Sena on 21 August, 2019

Rajeev Khurana vs Principal, Saraswati Bal Mandir And Ors on 21 February, 2025

48. In the present case, the appellant was appointed on 03.09.1997 and his services were terminated on 30.04.1998. Rule 105 of the DSE Rules provides that every employee be appointed on probation for the period of one year. The appellant was appointed on probation for a period of two years, which is contrary to Rule 105 of the DSE Rules. In terms of Rule 105 of the DSE Rules, the appellant's probation period could not be extended after 03.09.1998 without permission of the DOE. As explained by the Supreme Court in Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School & Another v. J.A.J Vasu Sena & Another11 at that stage, the employer was required to confirm the services in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 105 of the DSE Rules, if the performance of the probationer is satisfactory; or discharge the employee if his conduct and performance is not found satisfactory; or seek approval of the DOE for further extension of the probation period of one year.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 160 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 160 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 160 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/134 vs The State Of Assam And Anr. A on 20 June, 2025

77) In the case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Secondary School (supra), Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 contemplated maximum probation period of two years. Rule 105(1) merely exempted a minority institution from seeking prior approval of the Director for Page No.# 86/134 extension of the period of probation "by another year". Under those facts, the High Court had held that the maximum period of probation is two years, which was approved by the Supreme Court of India. However, it was also held that mere continuation of services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not lead to deemed confirmation in service. In this case, the distinguishing factor is that the appellants were not only allowed to hold substantive posts but they were also granted second pay-increment, which they would not have been entitled to without being confirmed in service.
Gauhati High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next