03 February 2011
Supreme Court
Download

DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs SURENDER RANA

Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-002719-002719 / 2007
Diary number: 33587 / 2006
Advocates: VINAY GARG Vs I. B GAUR


1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2719 OF 2007

DAV COLLEGE MANAGING COMMITTEE .......APPELLANT  

Versus

SURENDER RANA & ANR. .....RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

The  first  respondent  was  appointed  on  

1.8.1996, as Store Keeper, on probation for a period of one  

year,  by  the  appellant,  which  runs  a  private  unaided  

school.  He was removed from service on 1.7.1997 by giving  

a month's salary in lieu of notice.  The first respondent  

challenged his removal by filing an appeal before the Delhi  

School Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed on 15.1.2002  

and the order of removal was set aside on the ground that  

the appellant had not taken the prior permission of the  

Director  of  Education.   The  writ  petition  filed  by  the  

appellant challenging the said order, was dismissed by a  

learned single Judge of the High Court on 8.2.2006 and the  

appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  was  also  dismissed  by  a  

Division Bench on 30.11.2006.  The said order is challenged  

in this appeal by special leave.

2. Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules,  

1973 deals   with   probation  and  prescribes  the  period

2

of  

.....2.

3

- 2 -

probation.  The second proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 105  

clearly provides that no termination from service, of an  

employee on probation shall be made by a school, other than  

a minority school, except with the previous approval of the  

Director.

3. The appellant does not dispute the fact that  

it is not a minority school.  Therefore, the second proviso  

to  Rule 105(1) applies to the order of removal of first  

respondent from service.

4. In  the  circumstances,  the  orders  of  the  

Tribunal and the High Court holding that the termination  

without the previous approval of the Director under Rule  

105  was  illegal,  does  not  call  for  interference.   The  

appeal is dismissed.

  ......................J.            (  R.V.  

RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;    ......................J. February 03, 2011.              ( A.K. PATNAIK )