Chattisgarh High Court
Ravi Shankar Singh Kshatri vs Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical ... on 28 November, 2017
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6477 of 2017
• Ravi Shankar Singh Kshatri S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Singh
Kshatri, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Devnandan Nagar, Phase 2,
Opp Hansa Jewellers Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (CIMS) 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, P. S. Naya Raipur Civil And
Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
And WPS No. 6478 Of 2017 • Ved Prakash Soni S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Soni, Aged About 37 Years R/o M. I. G. 1/7, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Vs
1. Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences (CIMS) Through Dean, Sadar Bajar, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Civil And 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 For Petitioners Ms. Savita Panjabi, Advocate For Respondent-Sate Shri Rajendra Tripathi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 28/11/2017
1. 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 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.
2. The matter pertains to consideration of the petitioners' case for their confirmation upon completion of the period of probation.
3. 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.
4. In view of the order passed by this Court in Khemendra Singh Dhruw (supra), I am not inclined to keep these petitions pending.
5. 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 Nirala