1 2026:CGHC:26014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4654 of 2026 Himalay Thawani S/o Murli Manohar Thawani Aged About 36 Years Assistant Engineer, Dau Shri Kamdhenu University, Anjora, Durg R/o Baniya Para, Village Rajim Tahsil Rajim, Distt. Gariyaband (C.G.) Currently R/o Minakshi Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University Through Its Registrar, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University, Anjora, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Vice Chancellor Shri Ram Ran Vijay Singh, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University, Anjora, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Registrar Dr. Bhanu Pratap Rathia, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University, Anjora, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.06.29 10:19:10 +0530 2 5 - Dr. Sanjay Sakhya Professor, College Of Veterinary Science And Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg (C.G.) 6 - Mr. Sushil Gajbhiye Finance Officer, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University, Anjora, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 7 - Mr. G.K. Dutta Director, Research Services, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University, Anjora, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 8 - Mr. Manoj Kumar Gendley Director, Extension Services, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University, Anjora, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 9 - Mr. Ullhas Arvind Deshmukh Currently Posted As Assistant Engineer, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu University, R/o Plot No. 35, Khasra Number 2610 (P), House No. 14/19, Mouja - Kohka, Kosa Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) :Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent/State :Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 2 :Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 25.06.2026 1. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 3 30.04.2026 by which the probation period of the respondent No. 9 has been completed and he has been confirmed in the service on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 10.11.2017. 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer on 04.03.2014 and subsequently he has been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 28.07.2023. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 9 was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 11.11.2014 for a probation period of three years. He would submit that till 2026 i.e. after lapse of about 12 years, due to various financial illegalities and irregularities committed by the respondent no. 9 his services had not been confirmed. However, all of a sudden by order dated 30.04.2026 the respondent authorities confirmed the services of the Respondent No.9 with retrospective effect i.e. from 10.11.2017. (b) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the service period of respondent no. 9, he has committed ‘n’ number of illegalities and also committed whopping financial irregularities. Learned counsel would 4 submit that the respondent No. 9 is having grudge against the petitioner and also used to attack the petitioner with the help of his goons. The Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog has also investigated the disproportionate assets, which were amassed by the respondent no. 9 during the course of his employment. Learned counsel would submit that since the probation period of the respondent No.9 on the post of Assistant Engineer has been completed with retrospective effect i.e. from 10.11.2017 there is every apprehension that he may supersede the petitioner, who was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 28.7.2023, while considering the matter of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. 3. (I) Learned counsel appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ University, ex adverso, would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. They would submit that in the case at hand the petitioner has no locus because no cause of action accrued in his favour. They would submit that the instant petition is a pre-mature because only on the assumptions and presumptions the petitioner approached this Court stating that if the services of the respondent no. 9 confirmed by 5 giving retrospective effect from 2017, he may be the senior to the petitioner. (II) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/University would submit that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. He would submit that on an earlier occasion the respondent No.9 herein approached this Court by filing WPS No. 6951/2021 seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to confirm his services upon completion of probation period as an Assistant Engineer. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 01.04.2026 by directing the 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 the said order. Accordingly, upon consideration of the case of the respondent No. 9 herein, the respondent authorities decided to confirm the services of the respondent No.9 and by order dated 30.04.2026 confirmed his services with effect from 10.11.2017. Therefore the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Engineer in the month of March, 2014 and subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the month of July, 2023, whereas the respondent No. 9 was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the month of November, 2014 and for one or the other reason his probation period could not be completed within the stipulated period. The respondent No. 9 approached this Court by filing WPS No. 6951/2021 which was disposed of on 01.04.2026 observing thus at paras 8, 9 & 10. “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, 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. 7 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.” 6. Thereafter on due consideration of the case of the respondent No.9 herein, by order dated 30.04.2026 his services has been confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 10.11.2017. The petitioner approached this Court only with the apprehension that if the service of the respondent No.9 is confirmed with effect from 10.11.2017 he may be senior to the petitioner because he is promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 28.7.2023. Thus, it is a premature petition. 7. In fact, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the subject action of the respondent authorities because it is the trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority. It is also the settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is 8 not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar v State of U.P. and Others (2001) 4 SCC 734). 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the confirmation order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the University in favour of the respondent no. 9. 9. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the petitioner has concealed the material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands, because on an earlier occasion the respondent no. 9 approached this Court by filing WPS No. 6951/2021, wherein this Court directed the University to consider the case of the respondent no. 9 for completion of probation period and upon acting on the order passed by this Court, the order impugned has been passed by the authorities. 10. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant invoking the 9 extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court must approach the Court with clean hands and make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. The doctrine of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi embodies the principle that suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. Any party guilty of suppressing material facts or making misleading statements is not entitled to equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution (See : K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others {(2008) 12 SCC 481}) 11. Applying the well settled principles of law in the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the respondent authorities. 12. Ex consequenti, the present petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib