Calcutta HC: In Framing Arbitration Agreement Words Used Must be Certain, Definite  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Evaluate Performance of Employee When on Sanctioned Leave During Covid  ||  Kerala HC: Public Paying Toll Fees Casts Responsibility on NHAI to Ensure Smooth Traffic  ||  Calc. HC: Writ Court Rejecting Claims Over Disputed Issues Doesn’t Bar Arbitration if Clause Exists  ||  Gujarat HC Notifies Revised SOP for Virtual/Hybrid Hearing of Cases  ||  Kerala HC: Mere Assessment of Mental Illness by Referring to Mental Health Board Won’t Serve Purpose  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Validity of 7th proviso inserted in S. 2(b) of Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act  ||  SC to Suspend Operation of Committee Under UP Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025  ||  SC Recalls Direction to Remove Allahabad HC Judge from Criminal Jurisdiction after CJI’s Request  ||  Supreme Court: Enforcement Directorate Cannot Act Like a "Crook"    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved