Delhi High Court reinstates teacher fired during probation: ‘Can’t avoid enquiry’

The order added that the court is not called upon to decide whether the allegations were true. The difficulty is that the school, without following the required procedure, acted as though its stance had been legally established.

Termination challenged

NGF Junior School, a private unaided recognised school, appointed a woman as a primary teacher on November 1, 2014, initially on a one-year probation. In April 2016, the school terminated her services, alleging poor performance, negligence and misconduct, including allegedly slapping students.

Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the teacher’s appointment letter could not override legal protections.

The woman challenged the termination before the Directorate of Education, which found that the prescribed procedure had not been followed and ordered her reinstatement.

The school then approached the high court, arguing that the teacher remained a probationer and could be terminated without a disciplinary inquiry. The school also disputed the applicability of Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which says that no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his/her service be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the director.

‘Still a probationer’

Appearing for the school, advocate Anuj Aggarwal along with advocates Bhumica Kundra, Tanya Rose, Shubham Bahl, Kritika Matta and Nikhil Pawar, submitted that the teacher was still a probationer, as no written order confirming her services had been issued. They argued that, under the terms of her appointment, her services could be terminated without holding a disciplinary inquiry.

The school argued that Section 8(2) of the 1973 Act did not apply to private unaided schools when the woman was terminated in April 2016.

Appearing for the teacher, advocate P R Rajhans along with advocates Vivek Singh, Tarun Kumar, Abhishek, and Pratibha submitted that her probation had never been validly extended, as the required approval was not obtained and no extension was communicated to her. They contended that her termination was punitive in nature, because it was based on specific allegations of misconduct, including allegedly slapping students and negligence.

Probation status doesn’t remove shield: Order

The court observed that Section 8(2) applies to recognised private schools, including private unaided schools, except unaided minority schools. Therefore, prior approval of the director was mandatory before terminating the teacher’s services.

It held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Raj Kumar v Director of Education applies retrospectively (applies to instances before the judgment). The fact that the teacher was terminated just five days before this judgment did not help the school, as Section 8(2) already represented the applicable law.

The court further held that the school had not validly extended the teacher’s probation. There was no approved order extending probation and no communication informing her of such extension during the period.

It held that the appointment letter could not override legal protections under the Act and Rules. Even if the teacher remained a probationer, her termination required the prescribed legal approval.

The court dismissed the school’s challenge and upheld the reinstatement. It directed the school to reinstate the teacher within four weeks, with continuity of service from April 8, 2016, pay fixation with increments, and 50 per cent back wages. The teacher must disclose any intervening employment or income, which may be adjusted against back wages.