LexHEAD MASTER, LAWRENCE SCHOOL LOVEDALE versus JAYANTHI RAGHU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 492
HEAD MASTER, LAWRENCE SCHOOL LOVEDALE
v.
JAYANTHI RAGHU & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2868 of 2012)
MARCH 16, 2012.
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
SeNice Law:
c
Deemed confirmation - Appointment letter stipulating that
the appointee would be on probation for a period of two years
which could be extended for another one year - After the
employee competed three years of service, her services
terminated without holding an inquiry - Held: The status of
0 confirmation has to be earned and conferred - The wider
interpretation cannot be placed on the Rule to infer that the
probationer gets the status of a deemed confirmed employee
after expiry of three years of probationary period as that would
defeat the basic purpose and intent of the Rule which clearly
E postulates "if confirmed"- A confirmation, as is demonstrable
from the language employed in the Rule, does not occur with
efflux of time - As it is hedged by a condition, an affirmative
or positive act is the requisite by the employer - In considered
opinion of the Court, an order of confirmation is required to
be passed - The order of High Court is set aside to the extent
F that the employee had acquired the status of confirmed
employee and, therefore, holding of enquiry was imperative -
Lawrence School Loved ale (Nilgiris) Rules - r. 4. 9.
G
H
Words and Phrases:
Expression "if confirmed" as occurring in r.4. 9 of
Lawrence School Lovedale {Nilgiris) Rules - Connotation of
- Explained.
492
HEAD MASTER, LAWRENCE SCHOOL LOVEDALE 493
v. JAYANTHI RAGHU & ANR.
Respondent no. 1 was appointed as a teacher in the
A
appellant School with effect from 1.9.1993 under an
appointment letter stipulating that she would be on
probation for a period of two years which could be
extended for another one year. In November 1995, she
was stated to have received some unauthorised amount.
B
After recording the proceeding, by order dated 18.6.1997,
the services of respondent no. 1 were terminated. The
order was challenged in a writ petition and the Single
Judge of the High Court set it aside holding that the same
was stigmatic in nature and could not have been passed c
without an inquiry. In the writ appeal filed by the school,
though the Division Bench of the High Court observed
that the proceeding did not cast any stigma, it ultimately
held that in the absence of any provision for extension
of probation beyond a period of three years, the services
0
of the teacher would be treated as confirmed after
1.9.1996.
In the instant appeal filed by the School, the question
for consideration before the Court was: "Whether the
appellant-school was justified under the Rules treating
E
the respondent-teacher as a probationer and not treating
.her as a deemed confirmed employee ?"
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On a plain reading of the letter of
appointment, it is apparent that respondent no. 1 was
appointed as a Mistress in the School on probation for a
F
. period of two years with .a stipulation that it may be
extended by another year. There is nothing in the terms G
of the letter of! appointment from which it can be
construed that after the expiry of the period of probation,
she would be treated as a deemed confirmed employee .
. In this factual backdrop, the interpretation to be placed
on r. 4.9 of the Lawrence School Lovedale (Nilgiris) Rules
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 2 S.C.R.
A assumes immense signification. This Court is only '·
required to construe the word 'if confirmed' in their
contextual use in r.4.9. The Division Bench of the High
Court has associated the words with the entitlement of
the age of superannuation. In the considered opinion of
B this Court, the interpretati<?ll placed by the High Court is
unacceptable. The words hlive to be understood in the
context they are used. Rule 4.9 has to be read as a whole
to understand the purport and what the Rule conveys
and means. Regard being,had to the tenor of the Rules,
C the words "if confirmed", read in proper context, confer
a status on the appointee which consequently entitles
him to continue on the post till the age of 55 years, unless
he is otherwise removed from service as per the Rules.
D
[para 8 and 20) [500-E-F; 508-F-G; 509-E-F]
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar
and Others v. Satya Narayan Jhaver 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR
532= 2001 AIR 3234 = 2001 (7) SCC 161 - relied on
Sukhbans SiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.