← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6668/2017disposed off

Sarswati Banjare v. Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences C I M S

2017-11-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra3 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6465 of 2017 • Ashutosh Sharma S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bangali Para Gali No. 4 Bhavan Kunj Sarkanda Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences ( C I M S ) Through Dean, Sadar Bajar Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur Civil & Revenue District, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Police Station Naya Raipur Civil and Revenue District, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent And WPS No. 6668 Of 2017 • Sarswati Banjare D/o Late Shri C. R. Banjare, Aged About 35 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra Bilaspur P. S. Sirgiti Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Vs

1. Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences ( C I M S ) Through Dean, Sadar Bajar, City Kotwali, Bilaspur Civil & Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P. S. Naya Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

For Petitioners Shri Savita Panjabi, Advocate.

For Respondents Ms K. Tripti Rao, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 30/11/2017

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the parties would not dispute that WPS No.3367 of 2017, decided on 27.09.2017 [Khemendra Singh Dhruw v. Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) and another] was dealing with an identical issue raised in the present batch of writ petitions, though learned counsel would submit that the said case of Khemendra Singh Dhruw (Supra) was disposed of after submission of reply by the respondents.

3. The matter pertains to consideration of the petitioners' case for their confirmation upon completion of the period of probation.

4. Whether or not an employee has satisfactorily completed the period of probation is the exclusive domain of the Appointing Authority and this Court is not going to pass any order for confirmation of any employee on successful completion or otherwise of the probation period.

5. In view of the order passed by this Court in Khemendra Singh Dhruw (supra), I am not inclined to keep this present batch of petitions pending.

6. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of with

observation that the respondents shall take decision with regard to the confirmation of the petitioners' services upon successful completion of the period of probation or otherwise, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 04 months from today.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Akhilesh