SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 923

ASHISH SHROTI
Gulab Singh Jatav – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
D.P. Singh for petitioner; Sohit Mishra, Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby his probation is declared complete and he is confirmed in service w.e.f. 29.4.2007, instead of 2 years after his appointment, i.e. 9.7.2006 as the period of probation was only for two years. He has prayed for a direction to the respondents to correct the date of confirmation of his service and to extend him consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner initially held the qualification of M.A. (English). As per the averments made in writ petition, in a special drive initiated by the Higher Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh for filling up the backlog posts of Assistant Professors, the applications were invited vide advertisement dated 10.07.2003 (Annexure P/2). Clause - 7 of the advertisement provided that the candidates are required to ensure that they possess necessary educational qualification. A corrigendum to the advertisement was thereafter issued on 02.10.2003 (Annexure P/3) prescribing the necessary educational qualification for appointment on the post. The qualification prescribed is as under:-

^^vfuok;Z 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk%&

¼d½ fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx }kjk le;≤ ij fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top