The Management, Hindu Education ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1428 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. The present writ petition challenges the order of Shri Dinesh Dayal, Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal, Delhi dated 6.2.2003 setting aside the termination of respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3-Ms.Prabha Tyagi- approached the Tribunal with an appeal against the order of termination dated 15.10.1997. She alleged in her appeal that she was appointed against a vacancy which was published in The Hindustan Times on 26.6.1994 and was appointed as the Teacher in view of her qualification of M.A./B.Ed. but that no appointment letter was actually issued to her and that subsequently in July, 1997 she was made to fill up a fresh application form and thereafter in October, 1997 she was served with the order of removal. No action as contemplated in the Delhi School Education Act and Delhi School Education Rules were taken against her. The management opposed the appeal on the ground that she was only an ad hoc teacher. The school management (the present writ petitioners) alleged that respondent No.3 was appointed as a helper teacher purely on temporary and ad hoc basis on a consolidated salary and that she was removed because she failed to show exemplary conduct and that the termination was without any stigma.

2. The Tribunal examined the rule of appointment,i.e., Rule 105 of Delhi School Education Rules, according to which every employee has to be initially appointed for a period of one year of probation and that the services can be terminated during the period of probation. The Rule also provides that on completion of the period of one year probation the employee will be confirmed with effect from the date of expiry of probation period. The Rule also prescribes that this Rule of appointment on probation and confirmation will not apply to an employee who is appointed to fill a vacancy on temporary basis or a vacancy for a limited period. The Tribunal then observed that the documents placed on the record do not show that the appointment was on ad hoc/part time/daily wages basis or that she was appointed to fill a temporary vacancy or to fill a vacancy for a limited period. The Tribunal, therefore, arrived at a finding that her service could not have been terminated in the manner it has been done. According to the Rule her appointment was found to be a regular appointment on probation and governed by Rule 105 of Delhi School Education Rules.

3. Before this Court also the petitioner showed only the documents according to which the petitioner was given salary for having worked as helper and as attendant. No appointment letter is shown by which the petitioner was appointed against a temporary vacancy or for a limited duration. There is nothing from which it can be said that the impugned order suffer from any infirmity.

4. My attention is drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Principal and Ors. v. The Presiding Officer and Ors. in which it was held that a termination simpliciter was not removal. It is submitted that the service of respondent No.3 was terminated without any stigma and, therefore, her termination will not fall into one of the categories of dismissal or removal. This plea cannot be accepted in view of the fact that respondent No.3 had already crossed the period of one year and as per the Rules she stood confirmed from the date of completion of one year of probation. The termination letter given to respondent No.3 was, therefore, in the nature of removal and she was entitled to approach the Tribunal with an appeal.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.