lN IHh HIGH (,OURI 0h CHHAHISCARH A1 Bu Awuu g q WRIT PETITION NO S1 3—7 mos I'I;:'lrl0NER' r_’_( (/r Aashulosh KumurSingh SlwinvLS/Q- Shree Clmndi‘a Bhan SinghagmljL 5 H abourtycamrs ,Shikshu Kurn’ri.Grn‘dL-JIII.‘ Primary School l)‘Oom’nrk'hciWu.“l‘ulvy, " Murwa‘hi Di‘S'SL Iii|zwpiu1:(‘("3(M VERSUS lj!‘1.\'ll’(‘)N I) EN’I‘S $tate of Chhutlixggu‘h Ilnvugh: “Um Secretary, l'kpdnmcm nl‘ - Scvlu u ll Education, Manlritluy, i). K. S. Bhawan, Raipuf (Chh’mtisgm'l-i) The Addililonal Collcclm‘, Pcndm Rnnd ,I’W’W-I‘ Bihwnm‘ ((‘ H ! ' Janpzid Panchaym' Mnrwnhi Through : (he (.V‘hic!‘ léxwuliw: Officer Jzmpucl' I‘zlmrhyul ' Marwahi. Di$sLBilusprrr (£111.) w‘lg‘rr PE'I‘I'I-‘ION UNDER ARTICLES 2i6/227 OF THI; CONSPI'I'TIII'IIIN , I OF INDIA '- ‘ I f, ‘ ’ v -C—22 XIH 25-1 1 -2005 Shri A V Shridhar Rao léarned caunsel for the petitioner. rate. r r ‘ ShnAkhIl Agrawal P L for the S Heard The petitioner was appointed as; Siksha Karmi’ Grade m on 22.3.2001 as probationer and thereafter his probation period starts ’Karmis (Recruitment And Jnder Rule 7 of Panchayat Siksha conditions of Service) Ruies. 1991(herein-after referred to as “Rules, 1997"). Grade lll on probation for three years ex‘tendable up to fve years for a aarticular school so that he serves for fu I probation period Petltloner has completed thre years of probatlon and It Five Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi, appears that his probation perlod has een extended further. (ears period will be completed on 21 .3. 006. The petitioner has filed “this petition challenging that Rule 7 :omplied,with because he has not been three years probation period. Learned counsel contends that tr e employer should inform the orobationer that his service has been eidended for ,a further period of wo years Since the petitioner has Rules,.1997 has not been confirmed after completion of failed to give notice before extending the period of probation Without passing confirmation order. the extended period of probation is bad i law and contrary to Rules. he view that contention of the On perusal of the papers, l am of aetitioner is not sustainable in law. Rule 7 of Rules. 1997 clearly ree years is extendable up to _L, [stew orovides that the probation period of th \ ’ five years. Extension of period of pr notice i$ required before eitenr Accordingiy. the contention of the pe In view of the foregoing, the pi No order as to costs. Pirya obation is not punitive as such no iing the period of probétion. :itioner is rejected. atition is dismissed. \ Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge [deem‘