Rajeev Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6636 of 2017 • Rajeev Kumar Yadav, S/o Santosh Kumar Yadav, aged about 29 years, Occupation Service, Posted as Store Keeper (Para Clinical) in CIMS Bilaspur, R/o Post and Tehsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, PS Naya Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur (CG)

2. Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) Through Dean, Sadar Bajar, PS City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District Bilaspur (CG) ---- Respondent And WPS No. 6641 Of 2017 • Laxmi W/o Vijay Kumar Dhritlahre, Aged About 38 Years Occupation Service, Posted As Lab Attendant In C I M S Bilaspur, R/o Shri M.K. Bandhi, Bouda, Bada, Masanganj, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Vs

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Naya Raipur, Civil & Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

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

For Petitioners Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 29/11/2017

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 Vs. 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 the present petitions pending.

6. Accordingly, 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) Shyna