J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of Mukherjee Memorial Senior Secondary School, through its Principal P.K. Jain, praying for inter alia the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and set aside the impugned order dated 9.8.2012 passed in Appeal No. 51/2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 before the School Tribunal may be dismissed with costs.

ii) Cost of the proceedings be awarded in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the following course of events culminated into the controversy in the instant matter before this Court:-

a. The petitioner School appointed respondent no. 2, as TGT (Mathematics) on 8th July 2008, along with 17 other appointees, in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. Respondent no. 2, accordingly, joined his services with the petitioner School on 14th July 2008.

b. The appointment letter of the newly appointed teachers mentioned that their appointment was subject to two years‟ probation. The appointment letter also stated that after completion of two years‟ satisfactory service, the services of the appointee shall be confirmed.

c. During the course of his probation, the respondent no. 2 was issued various letters and memos for his misconduct and unsatisfactory performance in the School. Pursuant to such memos, the Management Committee of the petitioner School decided to extent the probation period of the respondent no. 2 for a further period of six months, i.e., till 31st December 2010 after expiry of the two years‟ probation period. The respondent no. 2 was also intimated that he and his performance during the extended probation period would be under scrutiny.

d. On 30th August 2010, the respondent no. 2 was issued a Show Cause Notice to explain his unsatisfactory work and conduct. A subsequent memo was also issued to him on 9th September 2010 and a reply to the same was submitted by him. Thereafter, on 27th December 2010, the Management Committee of the School decided to extend the probation period of respondent no. 2 for further six months, i.e., till 30th June 2011.

e. Another memo and a subsequent reminder were issued to respondent no. 2 on 7th May 2011 and 14th June 2011, respectively, seeking explanation of his behavior when he failed to go to a class despite being present in the School and where students got into a fight leading up to the matter being reported to the Police Station Seemapuri. Again, the probation period of the respondent no. 2 was extended for six months, i.e., till 31st December 2011.

f. On 7th October 2011, the respondent no. 2 was ultimately terminated from his services upon his overall performance and conduct being found unsatisfactory.

g. Against the order of removal from service, the respondent no. 2 filed an Appeal bearing no. 51/2011 with the Delhi School Tribunal, where vide order dated 9th August 2012 while allowing his Appeal, the Tribunal quashed the order of termination of services and directed the School to reinstate the respondent no. 2 with all consequential benefits as well as 50% back wages.

3. The petitioner, by way of filing the instant appeal, has assailed the said order passed in Appeal No. 51/2011 dated 9th August 2011.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner School submitted that the letter of appointment issued to the respondent no. 2 mentioned that his appointment would be subject to a two-year probation period and being satisfied of his performance his services would be confirmed. It is submitted that since the performance and conduct of the respondent no. 2 was found unsatisfactory, he was given the opportunity to improve and therefore, his probation period was expressly extended three times. After giving him ample opportunities to improve, his serv