Probation Period and Employee Rights: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Deemed Confirmation

The case of Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. vs. J.A.J Vasu Sena & Anr. revolves around the issue of whether an employee on probation can be deemed confirmed if their probation period extends beyond the permissible limit. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case provides critical clarity on the interpretation of employment rules and the rights of probationary employees.

The central question in the case was whether the maximum probation period under Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (1973 Rules) was two years and whether an employee’s continuation beyond this period resulted in automatic confirmation in service.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School, is an aided minority institution. The respondent, J.A.J Vasu Sena, was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in English on June 18, 2008, on a probationary basis for one year. The probation was subsequently extended belatedly in February 2010 and again in November 2011. Eventually, the respondent was discharged from service on June 30, 2013, after nearly five years of employment.

The respondent challenged the termination before the Delhi School Tribunal, which ruled in her favor, holding that she had been deemed confirmed in service as per Rule 105 of the 1973 Rules. The school management challenged this ruling before the Delhi High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the school, stating that confirmation was not automatic. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this ruling, reinstating the Tribunal’s order and concluding that the respondent’s continuation beyond two years resulted in automatic confirmation.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School)

The appellants contended that:

• Rule 105 of the 1973 Rules does not provide for automatic confirmation; confirmation is subject to the employer’s satisfaction.
• The probation period may be extended beyond two years, and an employee cannot claim automatic confirmation simply due to prolonged service.
• The High Court incorrectly interpreted Rule 105 by assuming a two-year maximum probation period.

Respondent’s Arguments (J.A.J Vasu Sena)

The respondent argued that:

• The 1973 Rules set a maximum probation period of two years, beyond which the employee is deemed confirmed.
• The school management allowed her to continue for nearly five years, implying that her performance was satisfactory.
• The school failed to issue a termination notice within the two-year period, which should result in deemed confirmation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court critically examined Rule 105 of the 1973 Rules and its amendments. The Court made the following key observations:

• Rule 105(1) mandates a probationary period of one year, which can be extended by one additional year.
• The total permissible probation period is limited to two years.
• Minority institutions are exempt from seeking prior approval from the Director for extending the probation period.
• Rule 105(2) explicitly states that confirmation occurs only when an order of confirmation is issued by the employer.

Key Ruling and Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant school and provided the following relief:

• The maximum probation period under Rule 105 of the 1973 Rules is two years.
• The continuation of service beyond this period does not result in deemed confirmation unless an explicit confirmation order is issued.
• The High Court’s conclusion that the employee was automatically confirmed due to prolonged service was incorrect.
• Since the respondent had served for nearly five years, the Court directed the school to pay an ex-gratia compensation of INR 5,00,000 to the respondent.

The Court held:

“The words ‘by another year’ in Rule 105(1) of the 1973 Rules stipulate that the maximum period of probation permissible is two years. The limit equally applies to minority institutions covered by the first proviso to Rule 105.”

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment serves as a critical legal precedent in cases involving probationary employees. It clarifies:

• The maximum probation period for teachers in Delhi schools under the 1973 Rules.
• The requirement of an explicit order of confirmation for an employee to be deemed confirmed.
• The principle that mere continuation in service beyond the probation period does not result in automatic confirmation.
• The responsibility of employers to issue confirmation or termination orders within the prescribed probationary period.

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that both employers and employees have a clear understanding of their rights and obligations regarding probation and confirmation in service.

Petitioner Name: Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr..
Respondent Name: J.A.J Vasu Sena & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 21-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Durgabai Deshmukh Me vs J.A.J Vasu Sena & An Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Contractual Employment
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Aniruddha Bose
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category