1 2026:CGHC:15061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6951 of 2021 Ullhas Arvind Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Arvind Deshmukh Aged About 44 Years R/o Flat No. 107, Vande Matram Apartment, Model Town, Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Vetenary, Fishery, Mahanadi Complex, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vice Chancellor, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu Vishwavidhyalay, Anjora, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu Vishwavidhyalay, Anjora, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Yashwant Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- “10.1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders directing the Respondent Authorities 2 to confirm the services of the Petitioner upon completion of probation period as an Assistant Engineer; 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to consider the representations submitted by the Petitioner; 3] Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 30.10.2014 under the respondent University on a probation period of two years. He would further submit that the probation period of two years came to an end on 10.11.2016; however, till date, no order has been passed with regard to completion of probation period though he made various representations. He would further contend that a character verification report of the petitioner was called from the ADG (Police) and in turn, the office of ADG (Police) vide endorsement dated 11.07.2018 submitted report, wherein the petitioner was found suitable for confirmation in service. He would also contend that despite repeated representations, the respondent University has not considered the name of the petitioner for completion of the probation period, which cannot be extended beyond the maximum period of two years. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dayaram Dayal v. State of M.P. and anr. 1997) 7 SCC 443. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 & 3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that departmental proceedings remained 3 pending against the petitioner since 2019, which concluded in the year 2024, therefore, his name was considered for confirmation in service. 4. Mr. Tiwari, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Singh. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue, in the matter of Dayaram Dayal (supra), in paragraphs 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 officer as being under probation after the expiry of the maximum period 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. ” 7. 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. 8. 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, 4 1961, clearly states that the probation period cannot be extended for more than one year without assigning sufficient reason. 9. Now coming to the facts of the present case, though the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service, but till date his claim for completion of the probation period has not been considered. The respondent University has not come up with any specific reason to deny such benefit to the petitioner. 10.Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dayaram Dayal (supra), this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent University to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to completion of the probation period within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim