INTHEfflGHCOURT_OI^:HHATTISGARHATBILASPUR^ wRrr PBTmoNNo. •-s'^ i 72005 : " ; PETITIONER VERSUS MUDIIU Das Sonwani ,S/(;) L;itc Ashwadas iSpnwani,aged aboul 31 yeaju-s ,ShrksIia Karmi;Groc|elll PrimarySchool GummatOlinioiek Marwahi Disst. BHaspur(C.G.) ' t'i-i ffl PESPONDENTS ^^I^ ft. G. ^&^s^ -^'. State ofOhhattisgarh thrQUghAe, Secretary,,Departmeritol:Sctipol EduEatfpn, Mantralay, D. K, S. Bhawah, Raipur (Ghhatlisg;trlj;) :. ,2. The Additlonal Collectoi-, J'cDdi-.i Road ,0isst. Bilaspur (C.G.) -3.' Janpad Panchayat Marwahi;, . Through : the^Cftief Bxeculjya Officer Janpad Panchyat - Marwahi. Disst.Bila'spur CG.C;.)' , ^^- ^;,.;,.. ^ , ^,.,, .^,^,,...^..,-^ WKIT PETmON UNDER AIH'ICLES 2267227 OFTHEGCWsISTlTtJTlON QF INDIA n f \ ^niAT~>TIT^(TTT A T-t O /^T-1 TIT TT^-U ^T XI-HC-22 's^g'=qi;')fepi, ^•rfiy'iA. ^G<w<1*i,< ^,'1;:. .' ^, '-;M^.iS)A;S:tAM....._ ;.„, *l!1?ITSh1!<»>"~~""""""'"""~""-^'"'^;l/ 200^ sn^r^ 3SJ3V .S^^ftr \ "TF •^ sn^n 's^rat.'gfStf. 25-11-2005 forthelState (h^rein thrte ShriA.V.ShridharRao.learhedl Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. Heard. The petitibner was appointed 23.3.2001 asprobationeranclthere^l under Rule 7 of Panchayat Sikshti ConditionsofService)'Rules, 1997 1997"); Initially, the "petitioner was| GTadelll on probation for three y^ars ^: particularschoolsothatheservesfor Petitioner has Completed appears that -his probation period ha^ years period will be completed on 22,1 thls petition challenging that Rule 7| complied with because.he has not threey6arspF6bationpenod. : Leamed counsel contends probationer that his service has been two years. Since the petitioner extending the period df probation theextendeciperiodofprobationisba^l^ On perusal Qfthepapere.Jam petitiorier is not sustatnable jn law. provides that the probation period'-of h^s ^FfeiN •WRff^1StZt<f«i.yi< ; ^sifepTsii^r counse^for ttie petitioner. jas Siksha Karmi Grade Ul bn fter his probatioh period starts Karmis (Recruitrrient And irein-after referred to as "Rules, apppinted as Shiksha Karmi, ixtendable up to five years for a lull probation period. years of probation arid jt ^ been extended further. Five P.2006. The petitioner has flled iof Rules, 1987 has not been coriflrmeCI aftercompletionof be^n that|the emplpyershoulct infbTmthe [extended for a furtherpeiFiod of failed to give notice beforp witllout passing confirmatipn order, 'inlawandcontrarytoRules. Wthe yievythat contention offte 1 Rule 7^of Rules, /t997 ctearly three year&is extendable upto — J- {'tft^tf^; J^ •y •sa' fl'*KUt-(dAadiiA^ w XIsHC.22 'S^ '^W^.wAww.hww'y. WHCtT ShKlct) "^q, 2W S?I$?I9H Rsn?;3fl^i •gfet Priya fiye years. Extension of perioid of prob^tion is not punitive as such, no notice is required befofe extendjnfa the perjod of .probation. Accordingly, the contontion of the petiticjher is rejected. In view ofthe foregoing, the petit No order astocosts. <»lqtffl«11'<W<lT'^fe1EZt,<.fa'yl< ^SlPfPTSIi^I •. 6n is dismissed. SdA^.,:^ SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^[li^^R^ N'