J&K&L HC Quashes 65-Year-Old's Detention, says Cattle Smuggling isn't Public Disorder  ||  Karnataka HC Bars Denial of MV Inspector Posts over Experience with Non-Existent HGV/HPV Vehicles  ||  P&H HC: Lengthy Incarceration alone is No Substantial Change for Repeat Bail Plea  ||  Meghalaya HC Flags Amicus' Non-Appearance amid Lawyers' Strike, Stresses Loyalty to Justice  ||  MP HC: Arms Act doesn't allow Sports Firearm Licence Conversion to Self-Defence Category  ||  Delhi HC: Public Funding of LTC, CGHS Benefits doesn't Mandate Personal Disclosure under RTI  ||  Delhi HC: Fake Caste Certificate alone cannot Justify Removing Advocate from State Rolls  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Stop Sale of 47 Law Books in Family Copyright Dispute  ||  Supreme Court: S. 394 IPC Conviction Requires Proof of Robbery or Attempted Robbery  ||  Supreme Court Questions MP HC's Cryptic Reduction of Murder Conviction as 'Shocking'    

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