V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated August, 9 2012 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ in short) in an Appeal filed under Section 8 (3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 by the respondent No.1.

The Facts

2. The respondent No.1 was initially appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- per month on August 16, 2006. She was placed on probation w.e.f July 1, 2008. Two memos were issued to the respondent No.1 on December 23, 2008 and July 27, 2009 wherein it was pointed out that she has not performed her duties properly and had been given verbal warnings to rectify herself. It was also contended that parents have given complaints to the Administrators regarding her behaviour towards the children. The verbal warnings were overlooked by her. A reference was also made to a complaint received on the said date that the respondent No.1 speak harshly to the children and do not care for them. She was called upon to rectify herself and improve her behaviour towards the children, otherwise strict action was contemplated.

3. On July 31, 2009, the probation of the respondent No.1 was extended for a period of six months w.e.f July 1, 2009. Again vide letter dated January 4, 2010, the probation was extended for a further period of six months w.e.f January 2010.

4. Vide letter dated March 23, 2011, the services of the respondent No.1 were terminated. The letter dated March 23, 2011 reads as under:-

MRS. TANJEET KAUR Nursery Teacher Despite a number of verbal warnings and memorandum dated (23.12.08 and 27.07.09), dereliction of duty on your part still continued, no rectification has been observed till date. It is observed that your class performance is also not upto the mark and you are being violating the decorum of the school. Keeping in view, the above you are relieved from your services w.e.f 23rd April, 11.

Sd/-

MRS. JATINDER KAUR

HEADMISTRESS

5. It was the contention of respondent No.1 that she had completed her probation on June 30, 2009. She had also stated that she has not received letters dated December 23, 2008 and July 27, 2009. She had also stated that there was no complaint against her uptill July 23, 2008. The ground of challenge was also that Rule 118 and Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 were not followed.

6. On the other hand, the case of the Petitioner/School was that respondent No.1 was placed on probation w.e.f July 1, 2008. She was also informed that her probation could be extended depending upon her behaviour and performance. The petitioner also refers to the fact, probation of the respondent No.1 was extended vide letter dated July 1, 2009 and January 4, 2010. The petitioner had also highlighted that there were number of complaints from the parents of the children relating to the behaviour of the respondent No.1 towards the children. She was given number of verbal warnings to improve her behaviour. She did not show any improvement and for that reason, a written warning was given to her vide memo dated December 23, 2008. She was asked to tender apology in writing but she refused to tender the same. She was allowed to continue as teacher because of her verbal apology. She did not improve herself and it was for this reason, a Letter of Termination dated March 23, 2011 was issued to her terminating her services w.e.f April 23, 2011. It is the petitioner’s case that the services of a probationer could be terminated at any time if his/her services are not found satisfactory during the probation. The Tribunal after noting Rule 105 of the Rules, was of the view that an employee can remain on probation for a period not more than two years. It referred to and relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy Director of Education Vs. Veena Sharma 175 (2010) DLT 311 (DB) and of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, through Registrar and Ors. vs. Satya Naraan Jhavar AIR 2001 SC 3234 to hold that under Rule 105 of the Rule