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. (LPA No. 86/2018) The Division Bench accepted the deemed confirmation of the services of the first respondent who was a probationer in the school of the appellants.
(2.) Allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent, the Division Bench held that under Rule 105(1) read with the first proviso of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 (1973 Rules) the maximum period of probation permissible is two years. The High Court held that there is a deemed confirmation of the services of a probationer who is continued in service beyond the maximum period of probation, even without the issuance of an order of confirmation by the appointing authority. Aggrieved, the appellant school and the Andhra Education Society (Education society) are in appeal before this Court.
(3.) The appellant is a Delhi administration aided school and a linguistic minority institution. 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. 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. On 30 November 2011, the period of probation was extended by another year. On 22 May 2013, the Managing Committee of the society which conducts the school discharged the first respondent from service with effect from 30 June 2013.;