JAGDISH PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA Vs. BHOJPUR ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by an officer of the Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank at Arah. The facts are short.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on a probation. At the time of his appointment he was at serial no. 1. on the merit list. During the period of probation he was absent as being sick with Jaundice. The fact that he was absent and ill with Jaundice is not an issue. There is a faint plea in the counter affidavit that the petitioner 'sabsence was also due to his availing leave without pay for research work. This statement is in paragraph -9 of the counter affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner mentions that his leave had been sanctioned upon satisfaction of the Chairman. It was a medical leave and on this there is no issue.

(3.) AFTER the probation period was over, whether the first or the extended one, the petitioner found himself at the bottom of the list. The contention of the petitioner is that the regulation which governs his service particularly the aspect of probation is structured so rigidly that the evaluation of an extended period of probation cannot even be taken into account. It is contended that whether an incumbent has discharged a satisfactory extended period of probation or not, the net result will be that he will continue to remain at the botton of the list. This regulation i.e. 13(3) of the Regulation is re -produced below :