1 2025:CGHC:10524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1578 of 2025 1 - Sonal Yadav D/o Himmat Singh Yadav Aged About 31 Years Presently Working As A Patwari In District- Rajnandgaon, R/o 3/448, Khairagarh Road, Chikli, Ward No. 3, Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Land Record, Indrawati Bhawan, First Floor, Block No. 2, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Land Record, Indrawati Bhawan, First Floor, Block No. 2, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Commissioner Durg Division, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.18 18:40:34 +0530 2 Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who has been directly appointed as Patwari by order dated 05/10/2018, questioning the order dated 27/06/2023, passed by the respondent No.5/Collector(Land records), Rajnandgaon, by which, the probation period of the petitioner has been computed from the date of passing of departmental examination dated 17.02.2020, despite the fact that the petitioner was directly appointed on 05/10/2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the Rules namely the Chhattisgarh land-Record Class-III Non-Gazetted (Executive and technical) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for short ‘the Rules 2014’) would submit that the service conditions of the petitioner is governed by the Rules. The probation period has been prescribed under Rule 18 of Rules 2014, which provides that every person recruited directly to the service shall be appointed on probation for a period of two years. He would submit that since the petitioner appointed directly, the probation period would be two years from the date of her appointment, not from the 3 date of passing the departmental examination. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that the Rules are silent on the issue that from which date the probation period would be counted and as such, the impugned order, as far as the petitioner’s probation period is concerned, is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings and the documents. 6. Rule 18 of the Rules, 2014 speaks about probation. Rule 18 (1)(a) provides that every person recruited directly to the service shall be appointed on probation for a period of two years and (b) provides that if the work is found unsatisfactory, then the period of probation can be extended by the appointing authority for a period upto maximum of one year. 7. From the above provision, it is apparent that the period of probation will be two years from the date of appointment of an employee directly. The petitioner herein was appointed on 05/10/2018 and as per Rule 18 of Rules 2014, her probation period would be for two years from the said date of her direct recruitment. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order, by which, the probation period of the petitioner has been computed i.e. from the date of passing of departmental examination dated 4 17.02.2020, appears to be incorrect. 9. Under the circumstances, the respondent No.5/Collector is directed to look into the case of the petitioner afresh and take a decision as per the provisions of the Rules, 2014 about the probation period of the petitioner as to whether it would be from the date of direct recruitment of the petitioner or from the date of passing of the departmental examination. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The petitioners shall apprise the Collector/respondent No.2 about the order of this Court. 11. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi