The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedures outlined in Rule 118 and Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, before terminating an employee, and the need for prior approval from the Director of Education.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No. 43/2018; and b) Pass any such order or further orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fair in the facts of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. The respondent No. 1 (hereinafter "respondent teacher") is a teacher by profession and has been working as a Primary Physical Education Teacher [hereinafter "PRT (PET)"] with the petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter "petitioner school") since 2014.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner school challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 28th February 2019, in Appeal bearing No. 43/2018, passed by the learned Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter "learned Tribunal"), directing the petitioner school to reinstate the respondent teacher.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner school submitted that the respondent teacher was employed with the petitioner school on a contractual basis since 1st July 2014, and thereafter, reappointed on contractual basis on 15th July 2016, after conducting a fresh interview process on 11th July 2016. The said reappointment was concluded by the efflux of time in May 2018.

5. It is submitted that the respondent teacher had filed an appeal against her alleged illegal termination before the learned Tribunal. The respondent teacher in her appeal admitted that she was contractually appointed from 1st July 2014, till May 2016, with no subsequent guarantee of employment. Similarly, after the fresh interview conducted on 11th July 2016, a memorandum dated 15th July 2016, was issued to the respondent teacher recording that the services of the respondent teacher can be terminated without notice by the petitioner school.

6. It is further submitted that a meeting was conducted between the petitioner school and the respondent teacher on 9th August 2018, subsequent to which, the petitioner school offered the respondent teacher an appointment to the post of PRT (PET), which she declined. Further, the respondent teacher failed to report to work on 10th August 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner school inquired the respondent teacher regarding her willingness to join her duties, instead, she served the petitioner school with a legal notice on 16th July 2018, accusing the petitioner school of illegally terminating her services.

7. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration Rule 105 (3) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter "DSEAR"), wherein, an employee who has been appointed to fill a temporary vacancy for a limited period cannot after expiry of the said period, automatically acquire the status of a permanent employee.

8. It is further submitted that according to the judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mrs. Aradhana Goel v. Balwantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan & Anr., W.P(C) No. 8165/2007, it is a settled law that the employer is the concerned authority for judging the suitability of the services of a probationer and this Court cannot substitute its decision for that of the employer for any reason and if the probationer is found to be unsuitable for the service, such services of the probationer can be terminated in accordance with the appointment letter.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner school has paid Rs.1,45,313/- to the respondent teacher as maternity benefits w.e.f. 1st December 2017, to 29th May 2018, and no further benefits are due to the respondent teacher.

10. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 28th February 2019, passed by the learned Tribunal in Appeal bearing No. 43/2018, is against the s