1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G. WRIT PETITION N0. §$3s/ /2005 ETITIONE /Gulab Singh Marko,S/O Madan Singh Mark0,aged about 34 yeaars ,Shiksha Karmj,Gradelll ,PrimarySchool Gummatola Bolck Marwahi Disst. Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through: the Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralay, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattis-garh) x 2. The Additlonal Collector, Pendra Road ,Disst. Bilaspur (C.G.) / 3. Janpad Panchayat Marwahi Through: the Chief Executive §EMSWR Officer Janpad Panchyat — CLERK m A' Marwahi. Disst‘Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES Zf6/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA *f \xA iX r F/ Fa ) PR { after his probation period starts na Karmrs 23.3.2001 as probationer and there un‘der Rule , 7 'of Panchayat Siks Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (r 1997“). initially, the petitioner war Grade Iii on probation for three years .particular school so that he serves for (Recrultment And erein-after. referred to as “Rules , appornted as Shlksha Karmi extendable up to fve years for a full probation perlpd. 'ee years of probation and it as been extended further. Five 3.2006. The petitioner has tiled 1’ of Rules, 1997 has not been en confirmed after completion of J Petitioner has completed th appears that his probation period hz years period will be completed on 22 this petition challenging that Rule complied with because he has not be three years probation period. Learned counsel contends that probatroner that hls servrce has been two years. Since the petitioner ht extending the perlod of probation wrt the extended 'period'of probation is bad in law and contrary to Rules. On perusal of the papers, l am petitioner is not sustainable in law provides that the probation period of \ [n'tz‘aéfati \ the employer should inform the extended for a further period of as failed to give notice before tout passing confirmation order, bf the View that contention of the Rule 7 of Rules 1997 clearly three years is extendable up to 5", \ m tram W) (Mn 53(«3‘ gxo‘év amW W 2M) m3? Emmwmiifgram mmmm , %a1fanm . 25-11-2005 Shri A.V'. Shridhar Rao, learne§ counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhi! AgrawaL P.L. for the State. Heard. The petitioner was appointee s Siksha Karmi Grade ill on XI—HC-‘22 V five years. Extension ofrperiod ofprcbation is not punitive as such no notice is re’quhired before extendiing the period of probation; Accordingly, the contention of the pet Vioner is rejected. in view of the foregoing, the p ition is dismissed. No order as to costs, , _ L Sd/— 3 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge know \\ }