Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1862
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr Sec School & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
J.A.J. Vasu Sena - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4016 of 2019; Diary No. 40804 of 2018
Decided On : 01-02-2019
Yashobant Das, Adv., Rajesh Srivastava, Adv., Hanu Bhaskar, Adv., Suresh Kumari, Adv., Shubhangi Rathore, Adv., D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Adv., Vidyottma, Adv., Gitanjali N Sharma, Adv., D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.
The main legal point established is the court's consideration of the absence of explicit confirmation of services under Rule 105 in the present case.
Headnote:
Rule 105 - Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - The court addressed the issue of deemed confirmation of services of a probationer under Rule 105 and considered the absence of explicit confirmation in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners argued that there was no confirmation of services, contrary to the High Court's conclusion of deemed confirmation.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted a stay of the High Court's judgment and issued notice to the respondents, allowing time for filing affidavits and listing the case for final disposal.
Issues: The issue of deemed confirmation of services of a probationer under Rule 105 was raised.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was to grant a stay and allow time for further proceedings, indicating a consideration of the petitioners' argument regarding the absence of explicit confirmation.
Final Decision: The final decision was to grant a stay of the impugned judgment of the High Court and schedule the case for final disposal.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners is that Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, does not envisage a deemed confirmation of the services of a probationer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 105 provides that if the services of the probationer are satisfactory, a confirmation will be issued on the expiry of the period of probation or the extended period.
3. In the present case, it has been submitted that there was no confirmation and hence the High Court was in error in concluding that there is a deemed confirmation in service. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Dy. Director of Education & Anr. vs. Veena Sharma , (2010) 175 DLT 311(DB).
4. Issue notice.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent accepts notice. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
6. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
7. Counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today.
8. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.
9. List for final disposal on 16 April 2019.
10. In the meantime, there shall be a stay of the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 7 May 2018.
