SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

Mrs. Aradhna Goel v. Balwantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (31 Jan 2017)

Employer has to judge suitability of services of probationer; Court cannot substitute its decision for that of employer

MANU/DE/0248/2017

Service

By this writ petition, Petitioner impugns order of the Delhi School Tribunal, by which Delhi School Tribunal dismissed appeal filed by Petitioner against the termination of her services by Respondent no.1/school’s letter dated 4th May, 2007. Petitioner was appointed as a probationer with Respondent no.1/school by letter of Respondent no.1 dated 15th July, 2006.

Termination of employment of Petitioner was during probationary period, and dehors any other aspect which is in issue, it is settled law that it is employer who has to judge suitability of services of a probationer and this Court cannot substitute its decision for that of the employer, and if employer for any reason does not find probationer to be suitable for services, such services of a probationer can be terminated in accordance with the appointment letter. Appointment letter dated 15th July, 2006 entitled Respondent no.1/school to terminate services on giving one month’s notice/one month’s salary and which has been done by impugned letter dated 4th May, 2007.

In instant case, Respondent no.1/school/employer found that, conduct of Petitioner was not satisfactory in not giving her medical certificate within originally prescribed time, and Petitioner was pregnant at date of employment resulting in her being granted long maternity leave from, and these reasons according to the school/employer were such which disentitled Petitioner who was a probationer from continuing in service with Respondent no.1/school by school/employer exercising right of one month’s notice as per appointment letter dated 15th July, 2006. Therefore, since Petitioner was only a probationer and not a regular/confirmed employee of Respondent no.1/school, and law with respect to entitlement of employer to terminate services of probationer is clear. Court cannot interfere in decision of employer to not continue probationary services.

Tags : SERVICE   TERMINATION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved