D. Somu Vasudev v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3787 of 2018

1. D. Somu Vasudev S/o Shri D. Krishna Rao, Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Training Officer, Working Under The Government Industrial Training Institute, Mana Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Savitri Sahu, W/o Shri Kishore Kumar Sahu, Aged About 37 Years Occupation Training Officer, Working Under The Government Industrial Training Institute, Mana Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Mainaz Begum, W/o Mustafa Khan Aged About 37 Years Occupation Training Officer, Working Under The Government Industrial Training Institute, Mana Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Shradha Gupta, W/o Shiv Kumar Gupta, Aged About 32 Years Occupation Training Officer, Working Under The Government Industrial Training Institute, Mana Camp, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Joint Director (Training) Industrial Training Institute, Regional Office, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. S.K. Thomas, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Mr. Majid Ali, Dy. G.A.

S.B.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 18/05/2018 Heard.

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this petition, at this stage,

-1may be disposed off with the direction to the respondents to decide the issue of confirmation of the petitioners. It is submitted that though the petitioners were appointed way back in the year 2013 against the vacant post and their probation period has not been extended after initial one year of probation, the issue of confirmation has not been decided.

2.

Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioners' case regarding claim of confirmation shall be considered and decided by the competent authority as early as possible.

3.

Considering the submission, without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this stage, I am inclined to dispose off the petition with the direction to respondent No.2 to decide petitioners' claim for confirmation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha