VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners/school impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as DST) dated 12.5.2015. DST by its judgment dated 12.5.2015 has accepted the appeal filed by the respondent no.1/employee before the DST and the DST has set aside the order of termination of the services of the respondent no.1 by the letter dated 5.4.2013. The issue in this present writ petition is with respect to whether the respondent no.1 is deemed to be confirmed in the services with the petitioners/school on completion of three years period of probation and hence his services could not be terminated by the letter dated 5.4.2013.

2. The issue as regards the period of probation and whether confirmation is automatic on completion of period of two years of probation under Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 or when can the probationary employees services be taken as confirmed on completing a particular number of years of service has been the subject matter of the decision of this Court in the case of Hamdard Public School Vs. Directorate of Education and Anr. 202 (2013) DLT 111. In this judgment it has been held that an employee of a school is deemed to be confirmed in services ordinarily after a period of three years of service. The period beyond three years and up to six years can be extended only if there are grave and exceptional circumstances to extend the period of probation beyond three years. Therefore, ordinarily an employee of a school has been held deemed to be confirmed after completion of probationary services of three years. The relevant paras of the judgment in Hamdard Public School’s case (supra) are paras 10 and 11, and the rationale for why the period of deemed confirmation is upon completion of probationary period of three years and as to whether there is no deemed confirmation on completion of two years period as specified under Rule 105 of Delhi School Education Rules, is a subject matter of discussion in the earlier paras 2 to 9 of the said judgment, and therefore all the relevant paras 2 to 11 are reproduced as under:-

“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 question so far as the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 are concerned. There is no judgment either of a learned Single Judge of this Court or a Division Bench of this Court or of the Supreme Court interpreting Rule 105. There is no interpretation of Rule 105 in the sense as to whether the period of probation can only be of two years or if it statutorily is stated to be two years, can it not be extended beyond two years inasmuch as the language does not provide for deemed confirmation or automatic confirmation. Let me therefore at the outset reproduce the relevant Rule 105, of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, and which reads as under:-

“105. Probation.-(1) Every employee shall, on initial appointment, be on probation for a period of one year which may be extended by the appointing authority [with the prior approval of the Director] and the services of an employee may be terminated without notice during the period of probation if the work and conduct of the employee, during the said period, is not, in the opinion of the appointing authority, satisfactory:

[Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule relating to the prior approval of the Director in regard to the extension of the period of probation by another year, shall not apply in the case of an employee of a minority school: Provided further that no termination from the service of an employee on probation shall be made by a school, other than a minority school, except with the previous approval of the Director.] (2) If the work and conduct of an empl