DURGABAI DESHMUKH MEMORIAL SR. SEC. SCHOOL & ANR. versus VASU SENA & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 21-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
881
DURGABAI DESHMUKH MEMORIAL
SR. SEC. SCHOOL & ANR.
v.
J.A.J. VASU SENA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.5926 of 2019)
AUGUST 21, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – r.105 – Probation –
Deemed confirmation of  service – The first respondent joined service
on probation for a period of one year on 01.07.2008 – However,
she continued as a probationer for nearly five years – Thereafter,
she was discharged from service w.e.f  30.06.2013 – High Court
held that r.105 fixes a maximum probationary period of two years
and the continuation of service beyond the maximum period would
amount to a deemed confirmation of service by implication, even
without the issuance of an order of confirmation – On appeal, held:
It has emerged from the consistent line of precedent of Supreme
Court that where the relevant rule or the appointment letter stipulates
a condition precedent to the confirmation of service, there is no
deemed confirmation of service merely because the services of a
probationer are continued beyond the period of probation – It is
only upon the issuance of an order of confirmation that the
probationer is granted substantive appointment in that post –
R.105(2) stipulates the satisfaction of the appointing authority as a
condition precedent to the issuance of an order of confirmation –
In the instant case, there was no order of confirmation and the
appointment letter also did not stipulate that the first respondent
shall be confirmed upon the expiry of the probationary period –
Thus, the continuation of services beyond the period of probation
did not entitle the probationer to a deemed confirmation of service
– However, since respondent continued as a probationer for nearly
five years in the contravention of r.105 as well as the appointment
letter, the respondent granted an award of ex-gratia compensation
of Rs.5,00,000/- – Therefore, order of the High Court so far as, it
confirmed the services of the first respondent set aside.
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 881
     881
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – r.105 – “by another
year” –  Meaning of – Held: The plain reading of the words “by
another year” implies that the appointing authority of an institution
may extend the period of probation by one additional year over
and above the mandatory year of probation with the prior approval
of the Director – R.105(1) of the 1973 Rules, therefore, stipulates a
limitation on the total probationary period to two years – The first
proviso stipulates that the prior approval of the Director shall not
be required in the case of a minority institution.
Interpretation of Statutes – Ordinary and literal construction
of the words – Held:  It is a settled position of law that where the
words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, they must be
interpreted in their ordinary grammatical sense, unless the
interpretation leads to an absurd result – It is only where the language
of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction,
leads to a manifest contradiction, or to some inconvenience or
absurdity, hardship or injustice, that a construction may be put upon
it which modifies the meaning of the words.
Interpretation of Statutes – Objective of a proviso – Held: It
is a settled position of law that the objective of a proviso is to carve
out from the main section a class or category to which the main
section does not apply – A proviso must prima facie be read and
considered in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso
– It is not a separate or independent enactment.
The appellant-Delhi Administration aided school and a
linguistic minority institution appointed the first respondent on
probation to the post of PGI (English General) on 18.7.2008 for a
duration of one year.  The respondent continued as a probationer
for nearly five years.  Thereafter, she was discharged from the
service. Aggrieved, the first respondent filed an appeal before
the Delhi School Tribunal, which was allowed and order of
discharge was set aside.  Appellants filed a writ petition before
the High Court.  The High Court held that the conduct of the
management in allowing the first respondent to continue in service
for nearly five years evidenced the satisfactory conduct of the
first respondent and resulted in a deemed confirmation of service.
Hence, the present appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
883
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.