RAJEEV KHURANA Vs. PRINCIPAL, SARASWATI BAL MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal dated 17.9.2007 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein whereby petitioner challenged the termination of his services during the probation period by the order dated 30.4.1998.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on a probation for a period of two years in terms of the appointment letter dated 3.9.1997 and was terminated within the first year of service by the letter dated 30.4.1998. Though there are various reasons given for considering the termination of services of the petitioner as a probationer, and which includes the issue of direction to the petitioner to improve his teaching practices, I may note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice have not to be followed before terminating the services of the probationer. This is so held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491. In this judgment the Supreme Court has held that if the termination order says that the performance is unsatisfactory, even then, it cannot be said that the order is stigmatic. Paras 44 to 46 of the said judgment read as under:

(3.) THE Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. Vs. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 623 has again held that there is no need for following the principles of natural justice while terminating the services of a probationer and even if the termination order refers to the unsatisfactory service of the probationer, the order is not stigmatic. Paras 18 and 21 of this judgment read as under: -