SC Explains When Shares Received After Company Amalgamation are Taxable as Business Income  ||  SC: Excavators, Dumpers Etc Used Within Factories aren’t Motor Vehicles For Road Tax Purposes  ||  SC: Complaints Alleging Fraud under Companies Act Can Be Filed Only By SFIO, Not By Private Parties  ||  SC: Preventive Detention Cannot Override Bail and Requires Proof of a Threat to Public Order  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Complaints Are Valid For Dishonour of Several Cheques in One Transaction  ||  SC: Bail Should Not be Refused Mechanically Nor Granted Based on Irrelevant Considerations  ||  Gujarat HC: Motor Accident Compensation Doesn’t Cover Medical Expenses Paid by Charity  ||  HP High Court: Panchayati Raj Elections Cannot Be Postponed Beyond Five-Year Term  ||  Ker HC: Victim Cannot File Second Appeal Seeking Special Leave Against Acquittal Under S.419(4) BNSS  ||  Delhi HC: Right to Higher or Professional Education is Fundamental and Cannot be Curtailed Lightly    

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