NDLI: Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. Vs. Vasu Sena & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Probation r.105 Deemed confirmation of service 1973 Delhi School Education Rules
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	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. 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 937
Petitioner	Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr.
Respondent	Vasu Sena & Anr.
SCR	[2019] 12 S.C.R. 881
Judgement Date	2019-08-21
Case Number	5962

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. Vs. Vasu Sena & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Head Master, Lawrence School Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu & Anr.

The Principal, Cambridge School and Anr. Vs. Ms. Payal Gupta and Ors.

Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School Vs. Shri Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Shanakr Deb Acharyand Ors. Vs. Biswanath Chakraborty and Ors.

Sunil Sikri Vs. Guru Harkrishan Public School & Anr.

Sec., U.p.s.c. and Anr. Vs. S. Krishna Chaitanya

Halwasia Vidya Vihar(sr. Sec. School), Haryana Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashok Deshmukh & Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors.

Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. Vs. Vasu Sena & Anr.

Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. Vs. Vasu Sena & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Head Master, Lawrence School Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu & Anr.

The Principal, Cambridge School and Anr. Vs. Ms. Payal Gupta and Ors.

Management Committee of Montfort Senior Secondary School Vs. Shri Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Shanakr Deb Acharyand Ors. Vs. Biswanath Chakraborty and Ors.

Sunil Sikri Vs. Guru Harkrishan Public School & Anr.

Sec., U.p.s.c. and Anr. Vs. S. Krishna Chaitanya

Halwasia Vidya Vihar(sr. Sec. School), Haryana Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashok Deshmukh & Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education & Ors.

Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. Vs. Vasu Sena & Anr.