Delhi High Court Rules DOE Approval Mandatory for Termination of Probationary Teachers in Private Unaided Schools but Declines Reinstatement Due to Expired Probation Period

Court’s Decision

The High Court ruled that the termination of the probationary teacher’s services without prior approval from the Director of Education (DOE) was not in compliance with Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The court held that the previous High Court ruling, which found that DOE approval was unnecessary, was incorrect in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

However, the court did not reinstate the teacher, reasoning that probation cannot be extended indefinitely. Since the maximum probationary period had already expired, reinstatement was not a feasible remedy. Instead, the court set aside the earlier ruling that DOE approval was not required but upheld the school’s decision that the teacher’s performance was unsatisfactory.

---

Facts

Appointment and Terms of Employment

1. The teacher was appointed on 03.09.1997 as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Mathematics and Science.
2. The appointment was made by an unaided private school, meaning it did not receive government funding.
3. The appointment was subject to a two-year probationary period, as per the appointment letter.
4. The appointment letter stated that either party could terminate the employment with one month’s notice or by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice.

Complaints and Performance Issues

1. Complaints were received from parents of students regarding the teacher’s behavior and teaching quality.
2. The school management found the teacher’s performance to be unsatisfactory and issued a formal notice on 01.04.1998 outlining concerns about his work.
3. Additionally, the teacher remained absent for 14 days without explanation, which was considered a violation of employment terms.

Termination Process

1. On 22.04.1998, the school’s managing committee recommended termination due to continued unsatisfactory performance.
2. The school requested DOE approval for termination via a letter.
3. DOE did not respond to the request.
4. Despite not receiving a response, the school proceeded to terminate the teacher on 30.04.1998.

Legal Challenges

1. The teacher challenged the termination before the Delhi School Tribunal, arguing that DOE approval was mandatory under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
2. The Tribunal upheld the termination, stating that DOE approval was not required.
3. The teacher then filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in 2008, but the Single Judge dismissed the petition, relying on the Kathuria Public School case, which held that DOE approval was not needed for unaided schools.
4. The present appeal was filed against this dismissal.

---

Issues Before the Court

1. Was prior approval from the DOE required before terminating the teacher’s services?
2. Was the termination illegal due to non-compliance with Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973?
3. Should the teacher be reinstated due to the alleged illegality in termination?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments (Teacher’s Case)

• Violation of Rule 105:
  • The teacher argued that Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 clearly states that termination of probationary employees requires prior DOE approval (except in minority schools).
  • Since the school did not obtain such approval, the termination was illegal.
• Supreme Court Precedents:
  • The teacher cited Supreme Court decisions that upheld DOE approval as a mandatory requirement, including:
    1. DAV College Managing Committee v. Surender Rana (2011) – which ruled that DOE approval is required for terminating employees in private unaided schools.
    2. Raj Kumar v. Director of Education (2016) – which overruled Kathuria Public School case, affirming DOE approval was necessary.
• Unlawful Termination and Denial of Natural Justice:
  • The teacher contended that his termination was done without a fair hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

---

Respondent’s Arguments (School’s Case)

• Existing Legal Precedents at the Time:
  • The school argued that at the time of termination (1998), the Kathuria Public School case was the prevailing legal precedent.
  • This case held that DOE approval was not required for unaided schools, so the school acted within the law at that time.
• Deemed Approval of DOE:
  • The school pointed out that it sent a request for DOE approval on 22.04.1998.
  • Since DOE never responded, it should be treated as deemed approval.
• Termination Was Justified:
  • The school argued that the teacher’s unsatisfactory performance and unexplained 14-day absence justified termination.

---

Analysis of the Law

Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973

• This rule mandates that termination of probationary employees requires prior DOE approval, except in minority institutions.
• The court ruled that this provision exists to prevent arbitrary dismissals and must be followed.

Supreme Court Precedents

1. Raj Kumar v. Director of Education (2016) – Overruled Kathuria Public School case and confirmed that DOE approval is mandatory.
2. DAV College Managing Committee v. Surender Rana (2011) – The Supreme Court upheld the requirement of DOE approval for private unaided schools.

Probation and Employer’s Rights

• Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial School case (2019) ruled that:
  • Probation cannot be extended indefinitely.
  • At the end of probation, the employer must either confirm or terminate employment.

---

Precedent Analysis

1. Kathuria Public School case (2005) – Ruled that DOE approval was not required.
2. Raj Kumar case (2016) – Overruled the Kathuria case, stating DOE approval is mandatory.
3. Durgabai Deshmukh School case (2019) – Held that probation must end with either confirmation or termination.

---

Court’s Reasoning

• DOE Approval Was Required: The previous High Court ruling was incorrect, as Kathuria Public School had been overruled.
• Employer’s Right to Terminate Unsatisfactory Employees: Probation cannot last indefinitely, and an employer has the right to terminate an underperforming employee.
• DOE’s Silence Does Not Justify Indefinite Employment: Since the school requested DOE approval and received no response, it could not be expected to retain the teacher indefinitely.

---

Conclusion

1. The High Court set aside the previous ruling that DOE approval was not required.
2. However, the teacher was not reinstated, as probation cannot be extended indefinitely.
3. The appeal was partially allowed, but no additional relief was granted to the teacher.

---

Implications of the Judgment

1. DOE Approval is Mandatory: Private unaided schools must obtain DOE approval before terminating probationary employees.
2. Schools Cannot Extend Probation Indefinitely: Schools must either confirm or terminate an employee after two years.
3. Balancing Employee Protection and School Autonomy: While schools cannot arbitrarily dismiss employees, they also cannot be forced to retain underperforming staff indefinitely.

Also Read – Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petition on Voter Eligibility in Co-Operative Bank Election: Upholds Section 70 Jurisdiction and Limits Judicial Intervention Under Article 226