PTIONER x‘ / Smt. Satya Singh D/O Shre Amar Singh Rana, aged about 32' yeaars ,Shiksha Karmi,Gmdcm, PrimarySchool Usadhfl Disst‘ Bilaspu1‘(C.G. c ‘ah. Mnrwnhi ) State of Chhattisgarh through: thc Secretary, Department of School ' Education, Mantralay, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgzlrh) The Additlonal Collector, Pcndm Road ,Disst. Bilaspur (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat Marwahi Through : the Chief Executivc Officer Janpad Panchyul. Marwahi. Disst.Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 526/227 OE THE CONSTITUTION , I OE INDIA ' ‘ I I ETI \ XLHC—22 3am. WW; fawag 31W Yaw Shrl A V Shndhar Rao Iearned counsel for the-petitioner. ShnAkhHAgrawaL P.L.forthe State. ‘ I Heard. The petitioner was appointed as’ Siksha Karmi Grade iii on 23.3.2001 as probationer and thereafter his probation period starts'l under Ruie 7 of Panchayat Sikdha Krarmis" (Recruitment And Conditions of Service) Rules. 1997 ( erein-after referred to as “Ruies, 1997"). initially, the petitioner w appointed as Shiksha Karmi. particular Grade iii on school probation so that for he three serves year ft; extendable full probation up period. to ’five years fora Petitioner has completed three years of probation and it appears thatrhis probation period ‘as been'extended further. Five years period will be completed on 2 3 2006 The petitioner has fled this petition challenging that Rule 7 of Rules 1997 has not been r complied With because he has not deen confirmed after completion o three years Learned probation counsel period contends r thLtthe employer should inform , the ‘ probationer that his service has be n extended for a further period of two years. Since the petitioner as failed to give notice before extending the period of probation ithout passing confirmation order, the extended period of probation is liiad in law and contrary to Rules. On perusal of the papers, l av? of the view that contention of the’ petitioner is not Sustainable in la . Rule 7 of Rules, 1997 clearly \provides that the [probation period ff three years is extendable up to ~L~ Mew \ f \ WW yo Fwafxe‘4) ‘ m 2095 my 31mm f. $§§§ ‘ ‘ mxmmm i ‘ _ V WWW 1:Q?W , amswm 2511-2005 XI—HC-ZZ W mm Wg'a ‘aeemaarw five years. Extensioh bf pefi'od of pr notice is fe‘quired before extem , ' Accordingly, the contention of the pe1 in view of'the foregoing, the p No order as to cost abation is not punitive as such no Hing the period of probation. itioner is rejected. tition is dismissed. \ t L Sd/- 1 Satish K. Agnihotri 1 ' Judge ‘ § s. g