Safiya Malik

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a writ appeal filed by a High Court employee challenging the delay in his confirmation and promotion. The Bench held that confirmation and promotion cannot be claimed retrospectively and that deferment based on an adverse Work and Conduct Report does not constitute discrimination. The Court found that the appellant’s performance during probation was assessed as “average,” justifying the postponement of his confirmation, and concluded that his ineligibility for promotion prior to confirmation was consistent with the applicable service rules and procedure.

The appellant, Shailendra Soni, was appointed as a Translator in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 29 February 2012, along with other candidates including respondent Vijay Kumar Minz. Both were placed on probation for two years and joined their duties on 3 March 2012. Upon completion of the probation on 2 March 2014, the case of the appellant, along with his batchmates, was considered for confirmation. While respondent No. 3, Vijay Kumar Minz, was confirmed on 7 March 2014 and subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 27 January 2015, the appellant’s confirmation was deferred.

Also Read: Non-Resident Company Not Required to Maintain Permanent Office in India for Taxation on Income Arising from Business Connection : Supreme Court Restores ITAT Order Allowing Business Deductions

The appellant alleged that the deferment of his confirmation was arbitrary and contrary to the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003. He contended that his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the relevant years contained no adverse entries and that the delay in his confirmation and denial of promotion amounted to discrimination. The appellant further argued that the reliance placed by the administration on the Work and Conduct Report, instead of the ACR, was contrary to established law. He maintained that no adverse remark or report had been communicated to him and that his representation dated 29 April 2015 was ignored.

In response, the High Court administration stated that when the appellant’s case for confirmation was initially considered, his ACR was not available as he had joined service in early 2012. The competent authority, therefore, sought a work and conduct report from the reporting authority, which was found to be "not good and average." Consequently, the appellant’s confirmation was deferred. Upon receiving a subsequent report dated 1 July 2015 indicating that his work and conduct had improved to “good,” the appellant was confirmed as Translator with effect from 9 September 2015. The respondents contended that this decision was fully consistent with the Rules of 2003. They further asserted that the appellant was not eligible for promotion in January 2015, as he had not been confirmed on the post at that time.

The Single Judge, upon considering the submissions, dismissed the writ petition on 16 July 2025. The present appeal was filed challenging that order under the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006.

The Court recorded that "Rule 10(2) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003, provides that on completion of probation period or officiation, if a permanent post is available, the probationer shall be confirmed in the service." It further observed that "there will be no deemed confirmation and the employee should first complete the probation period successfully and the permanent post should be available."

The Bench noted that the appellant’s work and conduct were not satisfactory at the time of the initial assessment and stated that "completion of probation period successfully indicates that the appellant’s work and conduct should be good; then only he can be qualified after completion of probation period successfully." The judges held that the finding of the learned Single Judge on this issue was in accordance with law.

The Court recorded that "the ACR is a formal document evaluating performance, conduct, and capabilities over a specific period, whereas a work and conduct report tracks activities, time, and productivity. Both serve to assess suitability but operate in different spheres." The Bench held that since the appellant’s ACR for 2012–13 had rated him as “good” (Grade B), there was no requirement to communicate any adverse remark. It further stated that "the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013) does not assist the petitioner in the present case."

It noted that the appointment order explicitly provided that "the probation period will be extended for one year, and until confirmation, the employee will remain on probation." This, the Court held, was consistent with the Rules of 2003 and did not violate any statutory provision.

The Court also referred to the factual record showing that when the appellant’s case was first considered for confirmation, "the Reporting Authority reported the appellant’s work and conduct to be ‘not good and average.’ Accordingly, the Competent Authority resolved to defer the matter relating to his confirmation." The Court observed that the subsequent positive report and eventual confirmation order dated 9 September 2015 were made in compliance with the applicable rules and administrative discretion. "The employer is within its jurisdiction and authority to adjudge the work, conduct, and performance of the probationer before confirmation," the Bench stated.

The Court held that the appellant’s claim to be promoted as Assistant Grade-I with effect from 27 January 2015 was untenable because he was not yet confirmed on the post of Translator at that time. "The criteria for promotion are strictly merit-cum-seniority from the post of Translator," the judgment noted. The Bench added that there was no parity between the appellant and respondent No. 3, as the latter had been duly confirmed and was eligible for promotion under the rules.

Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court Declines SIT Probe into Alleged Maoist Encounter: Intervention in Anti-Naxal Operations Permissible Only in Exceptional Cases to Preserve Federal Structure

The Court recorded: "The appellant joined his services on 3 March 2012 and on completion of the initial two years of probation on 2 March 2014, his case was processed for confirmation along with other employees. At the relevant time, ACRs were not available, therefore work and conduct reports were called from the concerned Reporting Authority. The Reporting Authority reported the appellant’s work and conduct to be ‘not good and average.’ Accordingly, the Competent Authority resolved to defer the matter relating to his confirmation."

"The Reporting Authority, vide memo dated 1 July 2015, reported that the appellant’s work and conduct were good and he may be confirmed to the post of Translator.  The Court concluded that "there is no illegality in the order dated 9.9.2015" and that "the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court."

The Court dismissed the appeal, observing that it was devoid of merit, and ordered that there would be no costs.

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate

Case Title: Shailendra Soni v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:51286-DB
Case Number: WA No. 743 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru