57 +0530 1 - Neelmani Sahu S/o Lt Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 42 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2582 of 2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.04.17 20:39:57 +0530 1 - Neelmani Sahu S/o Lt Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 42 Years Posted As Lab Technician - Government Khemraj Lakshmichand Arts And Commerce College, Baghbehra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Leeleshwari Sahu D/o Puranik Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Luchakipara Durg District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Higher Education Block-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 3 - Additional Director, Higher Education Directorate Block-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Government Khmraj Lakshmichand Arts And Commerce College, Baghbehra, District- Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Aman Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 17.04.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and may pass the appropriate order of confirmation of service on the post of Lab Technician. to 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to make a detailed representation to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Commissioner Higher Education for redressal of his grievance and for issuance of the order of confirmation and the respondent No. 2 may kindly be further directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules 1961 and pass appropriate order on 3 the said representation within a stipulated period and if, the petitioner would be found fit for confirmation the order to that effect may kindly be directed to be pass within a further stipulated period. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the respondent authorities issued an advertisement for the post of Lab Technician & Lab Attendant in the year 2012-13; the petitioners applied for the post of Lab Technician, participated in the recruitment process and finally got selected. The petitioners were appointed on 01.02.2013, on probation for a period of two years, which they successfully completed in the year 2015, but their services have not been confirmed by the respondent authorities till date, and they are still deemed to be on probation. He would contend that the Lab Attendants, who were appointed pursuant to the same recruitment process, have already been confirmed by the department vide order dated 22.08.2017, after completion of their probation period. He would further submit that the action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as provisions of Rule 8(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which specify that the period of probation cannot be extended for a period not exceeding one year. Mr. Aman Pandey would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to take a decision with regard to 4 confirmation of services of the petitioners with effect from 22.08.2017, the date on which the services of the Lab Attendants were confirmed. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dayaram Dayal v. State of M. P. and another, (1997) 7 SCC 443 (para-13). 3) On the other hand, Ms Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by Mr. Aman Pandey and submits that the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), State of Chhattisgarh has registered a case pertaining to the recruitment of Lab Technicians for the year 2012-13. He would further submit that the investigation is going on. He would also submit that pertaining to the recruitment of Lab Technicians for the year 2012-13, a recommendation has been sent by the Under Secretary, State Government to the Additional Director General of Police to investigate the matter and submit a report; thus, the decision taken by the authorities is not discriminatory. Ms. Akanksha Verma also contends that on account of the pendency of the investigation, the respondent authorities have not taken a decision with regard to the confirmation of the services of the petitioners after completion of their probation period. He would assure that appropriate decision(s) shall be taken by the respondent authorities with regard to the confirmation of the petitioners, after the conclusion of the investigation. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5 5) From a perusal of the documents available on the record, it is apparent that an advertisement was issued for the recruitment of Lab Technicians and Lab Attendants in the year 2012-13. The petitioners were appointed as Lab Technicians on a probation period of two years, which came to an end in the year 2015. Despite the successful completion of their probation period, no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities regarding their confirmation of services. 6) On the one hand, the Lab Attendants, who were also appointed pursuant to the same recruitment process, had their services confirmed vide order dated 22.08.2017, but on the other hand, the State counsel contended that since the investigation is going on pertaining to the recruitment year 2012-13, no decision has been taken regarding confirmation of the petitioners, but no document has been placed on record to demonstrate that such an investigation is going on; further, there is no document to show that any criminal case(s) is/are pending against the petitioners or the State authorities, therefore, the stand taken by the State is flimsy & fancy. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dayaram Dayal (supra), while dealing with a similar issue in para 13 held as under:- “13. It is, therefore, clear that the present case is one where the Rule has prescribed an initial period of probation and then for the extension of probation subject to a maximum, and therefore the case squarely falls within the second line of cases, namely, State of Punjab vs Dharam Singh (AIR 1968 SC 1210) case and the provision for a maximum is an indication of an intention not to treat the ofÏcer as being under probation after the expiry of the maximum period 6 of probation. It is also significant that in the case before us the effect of the rule fixing a maximum period of probation is not whittled down by any other provision in the rules such as the one contained in Samsher Singh's case or in Municipal Corporation, Raipur vs Ashok Kumar Misra [1991 (3) SCC 325] case. Though a plea was raised that termination of service could be effected by serving one month's notice or paying salary in lieu thereof, there is no such provision in the order of appointment nor was any rule relied upon for supporting such a contention. ” 8) In the aforesaid cited judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when rules specify an initial probation period with a maximum extension, an employee cannot be kept on probation by the employer beyond the prescribed maximum period. 9) It is a well-established principle of law that government employees cannot be kept on probation for an indefinite period. Further, Rule 8(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, clearly states that the probation period cannot be extended for more than one year without assigning sufÏcient reason. 10) In the present case, the respondent authorities have not issued specific order with regard to the extension of probation period of the petitioners and at the same time, no decision has been taken for the completion of probation period; thus, the action of the respondents appears to be discriminatory and arbitrary. 11) Taking into consideration the above stated facts, and relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dayaram Dayal (supra), this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get their services confirmed. 12) Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to take an 7 appropriate decision with regard to the confirmation of services of the petitioners on the post of Lab Technician preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the services of the Lab Attendants, who were appointed pursuant to the same advertisement, were confirmed with effect from 22.08.2017, therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to similar relief from that date. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get all consequential benefits from 22.08.2017. 13) With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is
Decision
hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib