CM APPL. 26060/2026(For Restoration)

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking restoration of the instant Appeal.

2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments made in the Application, we are satisfied that the cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the order dated 16.04.2026 is hereby recalled and the present Appeal is restored to its original number and position.

3. The Application stands allowed and disposed of.

LPA 23/2023

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.

5. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the Parties, this Appeal has been taken up and is being decided at the admission stage itself.

6. The instant intra-court Appeal seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge (“Impugned Judgment”) whereby W.P.(C) 5570/2012 (“Writ Petition”), proceedings of which were instituted by Respondent No. 1, has been allowed and the order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal (“Tribunal”) has been quashed.

7. The facts leading to filing of the instant Appeal in brief are as under:

i. The Appellant was appointed by means of an order dated 08.07.2008 as Trained Graduate Teacher (Maths) by the Respondent-Institution on a probation of two years.

ii. The probation period, in ordinary course, as per the stipulation made in the appointment order, would have ended on 07.07.2010, however on 21.07.2010, the probation period of the Appellant was extended, whereafter, it was again extended on 27.06.2011 for a period of six months.

iii. Vide an order dated 07.10.2011, the services of the Appellant as probationer were discharged.

iv. Against the order terminating the services dated 07.10.2011, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal by means of an order dated 09.08.2012.

v. The Respondent-Institution, thereafter, instituted the proceedings of the Writ Petition challenging the order dated 09.08.2012 passed by the Tribunal. The said Writ Petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by means of the Impugned Judgment, which is under challenge herein before us in this Appeal.

8. The Tribunal vide its order dated 09.08.2012 returned a finding that the order terminating the services of the Appellant dated 07.10.2011 was vitiated on two grounds; firstly, because in the facts of the case, it was a case of deemed confirmation of the services of the Appellant and, therefore, the order terminating his services simplicitor could not have been passed for the reason that no formal disciplinary proceedings were instituted into the alleged misconduct of the Appellant, and secondly, because in terms of the requirement of seeking prior permission for terminating the services of a probationer in terms of the second proviso appended to Rule 105 of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (“Rules”), no prior permission of the Director of Education was obtained by the Respondent-Institution.

9. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that so far as the issue as to whether the services of the Appellant ought to have been treated to be confirmed is concerned, the same is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.10.2015 in LPA No. 457/2012, Kasturi Ram International School and Anr. v. Directorate of Education and Anr.. However, he has stated that the other ground, on which the Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order of termination, namely that the order of termination was vitiated on account of the fact that no prior permission as per the requirement of the second proviso appended to Rule 105 of the Rules from the Director of Education was obtained, has not been dealt with at all.

10. Accordingly, in his submission, it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that for adjudication of the said issue, the matter needs to be remitted to the learned Single Ju