Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

february 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025-02-21

RAJEEV KHURANA vs PRINCIPAL, SARASWATI BAL MANDIR AND ORS

Citation / case number
LPA-780/2013 2025:DHC:1090-DB
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
RAJEEV KHURANA
Respondent
PRINCIPAL, SARASWATI BAL MANDIR AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 21.02.2025 + LPA 780/2013 RAJEEV KHURANA .....Appellant versus PRINCIPAL, SARASWATI BAL MANDIR & ORS. …..Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : In person. For the Respondents : Mr Puneet Taneja, Senior Advocate with Mr Anil Kumar, Mr Manmohan Singh Narula and Mr Amit Yadav, Advocates for R1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, inter alia, impugning an order dated 26.08.2013 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4968/2008 captioned Rajeev Khurana v. Principal, Saraswati Bal Mandir & Others, whereby the said petition was dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA LPA No.780/2013 Page 1 of 31 Signing Date:21.02.2025 16:26:53 2. The appellant had filed the aforesaid petition impugning an order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal) rejecting the appellant’s appeal challenging the order dated 30.04.1998, whereby his services with Saraswati Bal Mandir (hereafter the respondent school) were terminated, during the probation period. 3. The appellant challenged the termination of his services during the probation period on several grounds including that the termination of the services were in violation of the Rule 105 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereafter the DSE Rules) in as much as the services were terminated without approval of the Director of Education (hereafter the DOE). 4. The learned Single Judge rejected the appellant’s contention that the termination of his services was illegal as the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of being heard or

RAJEEV KHURANA vs PRINCIPAL, SARASWATI BAL MANDIR AND ORS · Niyam