Prior Permission of Director of Education for Terminating a Probationer is a Mandate Needing Judicial Adjudication.

The Appellant was appointed as a TGT (Maths) by the Respondent-Institution on 08.07.2008 on a two-year probation

The probation was extended twice, eventually totaling over three years, until his services were terminated via a discharge order dated 07.10.2011

The Delhi School Tribunal (“Tribunal”) set aside the termination on 09.08.2012, finding (a) a case of deemed confirmation and (b) a violation of Rule 105 for lack of prior permission from the Director of Education

The Respondent-Institution challenged this before a Single Judge, who allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Tribunal's order based solely on the issue of deemed confirmation

The Appellant then filed this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the Single Judge erred by failing to consider the second ground of the Tribunal’s order regarding the necessity of prior permission from the Director of Education under Rule 105

2. Whether the matter should be remitted for a determination on the statutory requirement of prior approval for terminating a probationer

the second proviso to Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, which mandates obtaining prior permission from the Director of Education before terminating the services of a probationer

Kasturi Ram International School and Anr. v. Directorate of Education and Anr. (LPA 457/2012), which settled the law regarding "deemed confirmation" of school employees

The Division Bench observed that while the Single Judge addressed the issue of deemed confirmation based on the Kasturi Ram precedent, the judgment was silent on the second statutory ground: the lack of prior approval from the Director of Education as required by Rule 105

The Court noted that the Respondent-Institution claimed to have sought such permission repeatedly without response from the authorities

Since this factual and legal dispute—whether the termination was vitiated for want of prior permission and whether the Institution’s efforts to seek permission were sufficient—remained unaddressed, the Bench determined that the Impugned Judgment was incomplete and required a fresh adjudication on these specific points

The Writ Petition was restored and remitted to the Single Judge for a fresh decision limited two issues: (a) the validity of the termination for lack of prior permission under Rule 105, and (b) the validity of the Institution's attempts to seek such permission. The Court ordered that the Tribunal’s order in favor of the Appellant shall remain stayed (not be given effect) pending the final outcome of the Writ Petition