Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dav College Managing Committee vs Surender Rana & Anr

Supreme Court3 February 2011R.V. Raveendran · A.K. Patnaik

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a school that is not a minority school removes an employee from probation, Rule 105(2) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 requires that such termination must be made only with the prior written approval of the Director; a termination effected without such approval is illegal and void, and the burden lies on the school to obtain this approval before the dismissal takes effect.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 2719 OF 2007

DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE .......APPELLANT

Versus

SURENDER RANA & ANR. .....RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

The first respondent was appointed on

1.8.1996, as Store Keeper, on probation for a period of one year, by the appellant, which runs a private unaided school. He was removed from service on 1.7.1997 by giving a month's salary in lieu of notice. The first respondent challenged his removal by filing an appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed on 15.1.2002 and the order of removal was set aside on the ground that the appellant had not taken the prior permission of the Director of Education. The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the said order, was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court on 8.2.2006 and the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by a Division Bench on 30.11.2006. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

2. Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 deals with probation and prescribes the period of .....2.

- 2 -

probation. The second proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 105 clearly provides that no termination from service, of an employee on probation shall be made by a school, other than a minority school, except with the previous approval of the Director.

3. The appellant does not dispute the fact that it is not a minority school. Therefore, the second proviso to Rule 105(1) applies to the order of removal of first respondent from service.

4. In the circumstances, the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court holding that the termination without the previous approval of the Director under Rule 105 was illegal, does not call for interference. The appeal is dismissed.

......................J.

( R.V.

RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; ......................J.

February 03, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free