AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delay condoned.
The submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners is that Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, does not envisage a deemed confirmation of the services of a probationer. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 105 provides that if the services of the probationer are satisfactory, a confirmation will be issued on the expiry of the period of probation or the extended period.
In the present case, it has been submitted that there was no confirmation and hence the High Court was in error in concluding that there is a deemed confirmation in service. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Dy. Director of Education & Anr. vs. Veena Sharma1.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent accepts notice. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
Counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List for final disposal on 16 April 2019.
In the meantime, there shall be a stay of the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 7 May 2018.