petitioner. The third respondent, in his counter affidavit also ratified that due to large number of persons being deputed for training at the Civil Service Training Institute, Bhavanisagar, they had belatedly deputed him for the training in the month of December 2015 only. As such, the stand taken by the petitioner that the delay in deputing the petitioner for the training is not on the part of the petitioner and therefore it cannot be put against him seems acceptable. It is also not stated in the counter affidavit as to which regulation is an impediment for declaration of probation to the probationers, who had not cleared the training in the first attempt. Apart from the bald statement that the failure in the first attempt is an slackness on the probationer, no reliance has been placed on any rule or regulation in this regard. When the petitioner herein had raised a ground with regard to discrimination, to the effect that, when similarly placed probationers have been declared to have cleared probation from the date of completion of the two years, the respondents have not countered the same with any justifiable or legal stand. The only attempted justification is that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the other employees, because he had failed in his first attempt. As observed earlier, failure in the first attempt is not an embargo or an impediment for consideration for the purpose of declaring the probation. In these circumstances, the impugned order declaring the petitioner's probation with effect from 22.05.2016 i.e., the date of completion of the Bhavanisagar Training, is not only illegal but is also discriminatory and arbitrary. As such, the order itself cannot be sustained and
