VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner-school impugns the order of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 29.9.2011. By the impugned order, the Delhi School Tribunal has set aside the office note dated 1.10.2005 of the petitioner-school whereby the services of the respondent no.2 herein were terminated. Whereas the case of the petitioner-school was and is that respondent no.2 has been rightly terminated, as she was terminated during the period of probation by a non-stigmatic order, the case of respondent no.2 herein (appellant before the Delhi School Tribunal) was that in terms of Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, probation can originally be for one year with a maximum period of one years extension, and once the period of two years passes, since there is no provision for extension of probation, the respondent no.2-probationer would be deemed to be confirmed at the post to which he was appointed.

2. This issue of whether the period of probation can only be a maximum period of two years i.e. one year with extension of one year, and that whether after two years, there is an automatic confirmation of an employee is indeed a vexed que