The termination of services of a probationer does not require compliance with the principles of natural justice, and even if the termination order refers to unsatisfactory service, it is not stigmatic.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

Oral:

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 3.2.2011. By the impugned order the Delhi School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and held that petitioner was rightly terminated from services during the period of probation.

2. In the recent judgment dated 25.7.2013 in W.P.(C) 8652/2011 titled as Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr., I have after giving the reasons held as under:-

“3. Sub- Rule 1 of Rule 105 provides the original period of probation as one year, and which can be extended by the appointing authority. What is the period for which probation can be extended is however not provided in Sub-Rule1. Sub- Rule 1 further provides that services of an employee can be terminated without notice during the period of probation if the work and conduct of the employee is not satisfactory. First Proviso to the Sub-Rule 1 states that the requirement of the provision of Sub-Rule 1 of seeking approval of the Director of Education with regard to extension of period of probation by another year shall not apply in case of an employee of a minority school. The first proviso is therefore really limited for getting permission of the Director of Education for extension of the probation period “by another year”. It be noted that the expression is not “only another year” or “only another one year” or “a maximum period of another year” or “maximum period of another one year” etc. etc. The expression only uses “another year” without specifying an outer limit of the probation period. Also, even if in some manner of interpretation we take the expression “another year” to mean that there can only be one additional year of probation after the original one year of probation, even then, there is nothing found in the first proviso providing for automatic or deemed confirmation. As already stated above, first proviso only functions in a limited field qua getting permission of Director of Education. Neither the main body of Sub-Rule 1, nor the first proviso, provides for a maximum period of probation, and also they do not provide for automatic or deemed confirmation. The following conclusions therefore in my opinion can safely be drawn from reading of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 105 alongwith its first Proviso.

(i) Sub-Rule 1 prescribes an initial probation period of one year, however, there is no maximum period of probation which is prescribed in this Sub-Rule.

(ii) Services of an employee can be terminated during the probation period (and which maximum probation period is not prescribed), if the work and conduct of the employee is not satisfactory.

(iii) Neither Sub-Rule 1 nor the first proviso provides for automatic or deemed confirmation on the expiry of the period of probation.

(iv) The first proviso only uses the expression “by another year” and not “by another one year” or “by another one year only” or “maximum by another year” i.e in the first proviso there is no outer limit of probationary period prescribed like there is none in the body of the main Sub-Rule 1.

(v) The first proviso can in a way be said to only deal with a minority school not requiring permission of the Director of Education, and the same does not concern other schools in Delhi.

I must hasten to add that in terms of the judgments which have been passed by Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education, 123 (2005)DLT 89 (DB) and Delhi Public School & Anr. v. Shalu Mahendroo & Ors. (2013)196 DLT 147 (DB), in spite of certain provisions requiring prior approval of Director of Education with respect to certain acts and actions of the school, it has been held that with respect to unaided schools, no prior permission is required of the Director of Education. I am of course not touching on those aspects because such aspects are governed by the ratios of the judgments in the cases of Kathuria Public School (supra) and Delhi Public School (supra).