Probation Completion Doesn't Entitle Automatic Confirmation; Work & Conduct Report Can Decide Suitability If ACR Not Available: Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The High Court of Chhattisgarh published an advertisement to fill the post of Translator. The appellant and other candidates applied for the post. After examination, the appellant and Respondent were appointed to the position of Translator on 29.02.2012. Respondent was junior to the appellant. They were undergoing a mandatory probation period of two years. The appellant formally joined the service on 03.03.2012.

After completion of the two-year probationary period, Respondent was confirmed in the post with effect from 07.03.2014. Then he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 27.01.2015. However, the appellant was not confirmed at the same time. His case for confirmation was postponed by the authority. Later he was confirmed on the post of Translator with effect from 09.09.2015. Due to this delayed confirmation, the appellant became ineligible for the promotion that had been granted to respondent.

Aggrieved, the appellant submitted a representation on 29.04.2015, requesting confirmation with retrospective effect and promotion for safeguarding his seniority above Respondent. His representation was not considered. Therefore, the appellant filed a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the petition vide order dated 16.07.2025.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant employee filed an appeal.

It was contended by the petitioner that the Single Judge erred in giving preference to a specific condition in the appointment letter over the statutory Service Rules of 2003. It was argued that statutory rules override the terms of an individual appointment letter, and any clause therein that is inconsistent with the rules is void to that extent.

The Single Judge's finding was relied upon which held that the Work and Conduct Report and the ACR are different, therefore adverse remarks in the Work and Conduct Report need not be communicated. It was contended by appellant that this reasoning was flawed. It was emphasized that any material which forms the basis for postponing confirmation and affects an employee's promotion, must be communicated to provide a reasonable opportunity for representation. Further, it was contended that the Single Judge had incorrectly recorded his submission regarding a similarly situated employee. It was clarified that appellant's argument was of discrimination. It was stated that both appellant and other employee had their Work and Conduct Reports available. Their ACRs were subsequently called for, only his confirmation was deferred without a rational basis.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents, the High Court Administration, that upon the completion of appellant's two-year probation in March 2014, his ACR was not available. The report on his work and conduct was found to be not good and average. It was further submitted that the fresh work and conduct report dated 01.07.2015 assessed his performance as good, therefore, he was confirmed in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the appointment order dated 29.02.2012 expressly stipulated that an employee would remain on probation until a formal confirmation order was passed. This condition was found in Rule 10(2) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003. It was held that the rules do not provide for any deemed confirmation upon the mere completion of the probation period.

It was further observed that the Work and Conduct Report and the ACR are different, but with the common object of evaluating an employee. The appellant was graded 'B' in the ACR for the period 2012-13, which contained no adverse remarks, therefore, there was no obligation to communicate it. It was held that the initial deferment of the appellant's confirmation was justified. It was noted that in March 2014, the Work and Conduct Report assessed his performance as not good and average. This provided a valid basis to defer the decision, and does not attract the requirement of assigning detailed reasons.

With respect to the claim of discrimination, it was held that the appellant and the other employee were not similarly situated. Their Work and Conduct Reports were different. Therefore, the different treatment meted out to them did not constitute discrimination. It was held by the court that the appellant's claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I was not maintainable. It was further held that the Single Judge had not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal filed by the appellant employee was dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Shailendra Soni Vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Others

Case No. : WA No. 743 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sanjay Patel, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate