Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 7 May 2018 setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.1 The Division Bench accepted the Signature Not Verified deemed companyfirmation of the services of the first respondent who was a Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.08.21 163253 IST Reason probationer in the school of the appellants.
On 22 May 2013, the Managing Committee of the society which companyducts the school discharged the first respondent from service with effect from 30 June 2013.
4 The first respondent filed an appeal4 before the Delhi School Tribunal5 challenging her discharge with a prayer for reinstatement with companysequential benefits and back wages.
On 22 May, 2013, the Managing Committee of the Education society discharged the first respondent from service with effect from 30 June 2013.
By its order dated 23 July 2015, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of discharge with a direction to the appellants 1973 Rules Education society Appeal No.
Pursuant to an advertisement for the filling of various posts in the appellant school, the first respondent was appointed on probation to the post of PGT English General on 18 June 2008 for a duration of one year.
3 The appellant is a Delhi administration aided school and a linguistic minority institution.
The period of probation was extended belatedly on 11 February, 2010 for another year on the ground that the services of the first respondent were unsatisfactory.
The period of probation was extended belatedly on 11 February, 2010 for another year on the ground that the services of the first respondent were unsatisfactory.
The period of probation was to companye to an end on 1 July 2009, which companyld be extended by one year under Rule 105.
The 1973 Rules were published in the Delhi Gazette11 on 31 December 1973 on which date, they also came into force.
On 30 November 2011, the period of probation was extended by another year.
On 30 November, 2011, the period of probation was extended by another year.
The companyduct of the management in allowing the first respondent to companytinue in service for nearly five years evidenced the satisfactory companyduct of the first respondent, and resulted in a deemed companyfirmation of service.
The first respondent joined service on probation for a period of one year on 1 July 2008.
54/2013 Tribunal to reinstate the first respondent with companysequential benefits.
Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the appellants filed a Writ Petition6 before the Delhi High Court.
Aggrieved, the appellant school and the Andhra Education Society3 are in appeal before this Court.
