IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2504 of 2008 Petitiouer Eiasanflal, sou of late SIiakateam, aged about 38 years, post: Attendaat m. Veterinary Health Departnieat, resident of Grani Kcsma, post: Kechna, Qjstt. Sui^uja (C.G.) Versus Respondeuts 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Sccretaiy, Veterinaiy Health Departtaent, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur(C.G.) Director, Veterinaiy Health Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Dtrector, Veterixiary Healtfa Department, Ambita.pur, Distt: Siu^uja (C.G.) 2, 3. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA (SB; Hon'ble SbriSatish K. AgmhotdJ.) Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smitha Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respoiidents. -^ ORDER (Passed on Uus 16th Day of Mareh, 2009) The petitioner is aggrievcd by the impugned order dated 8th April, 2008 (Aitnexurc P/l), whereby the sehction of the petitioner, as departinental candidate for two ycars trainiug of Assistant Vetennary PieM Officer was caxiccfled on fhe ground that he has not completed the reqiured fwe years regular service. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioiier subnaits that the petitioner was appoiated on compassioriate basis on the vacant post of BuU Attendant by order dated 18.3.1997 (Amiexure P/2). Thereafter, by order dated 17.4.2007 (Auaexiire P/3) the petitioner was posted on ttle oswty created post of Attendaiit-Establishuleitf. By order dated 24.3.2008 lilii ISi^^Q^NBssl^^&.'.A.^'^^ls^^&^l^^^^^^^^^s (Auaexure P/ 4) the petitioner was directed to atteAd-twS'years trainu^ for the year 2007-08 of Assistaut Vetermary Field OfBcer at Mahasaniund on 10.4.2008, as the petitioner bad completed five years regular service and he-was having fhe required quaUfication. Subsequently, by the impupied order dated 8.4.2008 ffaLeselection ofthe petitioncr for training was caacelled on flie ground that he has not Goiupleted five years regular service. Leamed coiinsel further submits fhat tbc petitioncr has coinpletcd about 12 years of semce w.e.f. 18.3.1997 and fhe experience should not hawe beencounted w.e.f. 17.4.2007, when the petitioner was posted as Attendant. The petitioner, accordiD^ly, was seut for trainiDg after taavfag coiupleted five years seivice ia the'regular establishment. 3. Per contra, learaed counsel appearing for fhe respondents submits that tlie circular dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure R/ 1) provides that before appointment on the post of Assistaat Vetermary Field OfGcer, a departmental candMate caa be sent for two years trainmg provided he fulfilb fhe required eligilsality criterion i.e. five years semce on regtdar estabUshment. The period of regularizatiQn ^ counted fix>m the date aa employee is regularized on a parUcular post. As fhe pctitioner was regularized on 17.4.2007 (Annexure P/3), he toas not comipletcd five years regular semce, as yet. 4. I have heard leamed couusel appearing fcw fhe parties aad perused fhe docuinents appended thercto. 5. The service of ftie petitioner is not affected evenif the petitioner takes tramiag after getting five years experience on tegtilar basis. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner if he is 7. Thakur ^w. not sent for two years traming. Thus, the contention ofleamed counsel appearu^ for the petitioner te not sustaiaable. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was not on regular establishment which bas been done later on vide order dated 17,4.2007 (Annexure P/3). Leamed State counsel further submits that after coxnpletioa of five years regular service the petitioner would be sent for tcaming. Thus, at ttds stage it is not necessaiy to examine the case ofthe petitioner in detail. In wiew of the foregoiag, nothmg survives fbr adjudication, at fhis stage. The petition is devoid of merits aad as such it is disimssed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatisbK.Agnihotn -^l Judge /'