Manish Kaushik v. St Thomas School

G. S. SISTANI, J. JULY 23,2018 gr LPANo. 477/2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment pronounced on 23'^^ July, 2018 + LPA 477/2017 MANISH KAUSHIK ....Appellant Through : Mr. Krishna Chandra Dubey, Advocate. Versus ST. THOMAS SCHOOL Respondent Through : Mr. Pramod Gupta and Mr. Mangoya Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent assailing the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) 1264/2016 whereby the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal was set aside. 2. The brief facts which have given rise to the present appeal are that after completion of process of interview, the respondent school appointed the appellant as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on probation initially for a period of one year and issued a letter of appointment dated 04.04.2011. As per the Terms and Conditions dated 28.03.2011, the period of probation was to continue till the services were confinried by the Managing Committee in writing. The appellant was granted regular increment in April, 2012 and July, 2012. Suddenly, on 05.03.2014, the appellant was informed by the receptionist that his services were no longer required by the respondent school. On 18.03.2014, the appellant went to the school when the Accountant informed him that his services had been terminated with immediate effect and his entry was restricted in the school. The appellant moved the Delhi School Tribunal against his termination from the school and the Delhi School Tribunal passed an order dated 10.12.2015 in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the Delhi School Tribunal, the respondent school herein filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 13.04.2017 by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Counsel for the appellant referred to the terms and conditions of the Contract of Services dated 04.04.2011 and contended as per the terms and conditions dated 04.04.2011, he was to remain on probation for a period of one year which could be extended by the Managing Committee but not beyond the period of total two years. Hence, the learned Single Jude fell in error while relying on the Terms and Conditions of appointment dated 28.03.2011 as per which he was to continue on probation till the services were confirmed in writing by the Managing Committee, was redundant. It is further contended that having worked for a period of 2 years 11 months, the probation period had come to an end. He further contended that the services of the appellant were deemed to have been confirmed immediately after completion of two years of probation period and it was not required for the Managing Committee to confirm the same in writing and the termination of the appellant was in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 4. Counsel for the respondent contended that there was no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and has placed reliance on Hamdard Public School Fs. Directorate of Education and Anr. reported in 202 (2013) DLT 111, Head Master, Lawrence School Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu & Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC1571 and High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar Ors. Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar reported in (2001) 7 SCC161. 5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Before delving into merits of the case, we find it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the Terms and Conditions of the appointment dated 28.03.2011, appointment letter dated 04.04.2011 and Contract of Service dated 04.04.2011. 7. Relevant portion of Terms and Conditions dated 28.03.2011 reads as under: "1. Initially, you will be in probation for a period for the one year from the date of joining. The said period of probation is fu