VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. The facts of these cases are almost identical and therefore for the sake of convenience reference will be made to the facts of W.P.(C) No.7173/2012.

2. Petitioner no.1-school along with its General Secretary and Principal by this writ petition impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 25.4.2012. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal set aside the communication dated 11.5.2011 issued by the petitioner no.1-school to the respondent no.1 informing that the probationary period has not been extended and the respondent no.1 stands relieved w.e.f 12.5.2011. Two main reasons weighed with the Tribunal for passing of the impugned judgment. The first was that in the opinion of the Tribunal the Minutes of Meeting of the Managing Committee dated 26.3.2011 were fabricated and the second was that the probationary period as per Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 should have been extended by one year, but it was only extended for about 50 days. The termination of services of the respondent no.1 were hence held to be illegal.

3. The facts of the case are that respondent no.1 was appointed as PGT(Mathematics) by the petitioner no.1-school on a probation period of one year w.e.f 1.4.2010. The appointment letter appointing respondent no.1 on probation for one year is dated 31.3.2010. Paras 2 and 3 of the appointment letter dated 31.3.2010 make it clear that confirmation will be effected only from a date of written communication to the fact that confirmation has taken place and that the services can be terminated by one months notice or salary in lieu thereof even before expiry of the probation period. The case set up by respondent no.1 before the Delhi School Tribunal was that without any requisite backing of allegation of existence of non-satisfactory services having been rendered respondent no.1’s services were terminated by the impugned communication dated 11.5.2011, besides the fact that termination is illegal because probation period could not have been less than one year and termination in such lesser period is hence automatically illegal.

4. Petitioner no.1-school before the Tribunal has placed reliance for non-satisfactory services of respondent no.1 upon the resolution of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-school dated 26.3.2011. It was contended that respondent no.1 being a probationer could always be terminated during the probationary period inasmuch as, services of respondent no.1 were not found to be satisfactory and as recorded in the Minutes of Managing Committee Meeting dated 26.3.2011. It was also argued that probation period need not be of one year and it can be of a lesser period inasmuch as Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 does not provide that the extended period of probation has to be specifically/necessarily be only of one year.

5. Let me at this stage reproduce the relevant findings and observations of the Delhi School Tribunal, and which are contained in its paras 4 to 7, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment, and the same read as under:-

“4. Assuming the contention of the Respondent School that a meeting of the Management took place on 26.03.2011, true, a question arises as to why the Respondent School did not terminate their services after finding them unfit for the job. The decision

(i) referred to above in the meeting on 26.03.2011 was to the effect that the Appellants were not to be confirmed. Decision

(ii) was to the effect that their probation shall be extended till the commencement of the summer vacation so that the classes did not go unattended. Vide decision

(iii) the Management had fixed the date of termination of services as 12.05.2011. Was it a just legal and justifiable order/decision? The purpose of extension of probation under Rule 105 of Delhi School Education Act & Rules-1973 is for giving an opportunity to the employee to improve his/her performance. Probation is normally extended by one year. In the present case it was ad