Satyendra Kumar Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 746 of 2015 Satyendra Kumar Chouhan S/O Late Shri Upit Ram Aged About 19 years R/O Village & P.S.

Bamnidih, Tahsil Champa Civil & Revenue District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Educaiton, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur ( C.G.)

2. The Collector District - Janjgir - Champa ( C.G.)

3. District Education Officer District - Janjgir - Champa ( C.G.)

4. President, Shiksha Parisar Samiti, Bamhnididh, Tahsil Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa ( C.G.)

5. Secretary, Shiksha Parsar Samiti Bamhnididh, Tahsil Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa ( C.G.)

6. Principal Lal Bahadur Shashtri Govt. Higher Secondary School Bamhnidih, Tahsil Champa District Janjgir - Champa ( C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :- Shri F.S. Khare, For Respondent :- Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 10/03/2015 1.

The petitioner through the instant writ petition, has challenged the order Annexure P/6 dated 10.12.2014 on the ground that the nature of employment on compassionate ground granted to the petitioner is bad in law for the reasons that the status of the petitioner has been shown to be temporary appointee and that the petitioner has also been placed on probation for the period of 3 years which also is illegal and improper and therefore, the petitioner seeks for grant of a confirm regular appointment.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner further alleges that the petitioner also is not being permitted to join his duties by the respondent authorities in spite of an order of appointment Annexure P/6 being issued in his favour. 3.

State Counsel at this juncture submits that all fresh orders of appointment issued by the State-Government is initially shown as on temporary basis and it is only after satisfactory completion of the probation that the employee gets an order of confirmation and it is in this manner that the order Annexure P/6 also has been issued in favour of the petitioner.

4.

On the aforesaid submissions made by the State counsel, this Court is of the opinion that no good ground is made by the petitioner calling for issuance of any specific writ to the respondents and therefore this prayer made by the petitioner, being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

5.

So far as the petitioner not being permitted to join his duties the Dy. Advocate General makes a submission that in case if the petitioner approaches the respondent No. 5 alongwith a fresh joining report, the authorities concerned shall pass an appropriate order forthwith. In light of the submission made by the State counsel the petitioner is now directed to approach the Office of respondent No. 5 on 23.03.2013 alongwith his joining which shall be duly considered by respondent No. 5 keeping in view the order dated 10.12.2014 and the order passed by this Court today.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Santosh