Automatic confirmation of employment after probation is negated unless explicitly granted, with proper evaluation of work conduct essential for confirmation.

ORDER :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2 to the extent of extension of probation period and delayed confirmation on the post of Translator with effect from 09.07.2015 in place of 28.02.2014.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that:

a) The High Court published an advertisement for the post of Translator and the petitioner alongwith other candidates has applied for the said post. After passing the examination, petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed on 29.02.2012 on the post of Translator for probation period of two years, he joined the services on 03.03.2012.

b) The respondent No. 3 was confirmed on the post of Translator with effect from 07.03.2014 on completion of 2 years service and he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-I on 27.01.2015 though he was junior to the petitioner which is contrary to the rules. It has also been contended that in view of well settled position of law that every entry in the Annual Confidential Report (in short “ACR”) of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, but till extension of probation period the ACR of the petitioner was not communicated to him without any rhyme and reason.

c) It has also been contended that ACR of the year 2013-14 was provided to him on 31.02.2013 and from perusal of his ACR, it demonstrates that there is no adverse remark against the petitioner to deprive the petitioner from confirmation and promotion. There is neither any adverse entry in the ACR of the petitioner nor any complaint or enquiry is pending against him and even no adverse remark had ever been communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 to deprive him from promotion and confirmation.

d) It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted his detailed representation on 29.04.2015 to the respondent No. 2 to confirm him and grant promotion maintaining his seniority above the respondent No. 3, but they have passed the order on 07.09.2015 confirming the petitioner on the post of Translator with immediate effect stating that the period of services beyond the probation period of two years is treated as deemed extension without considering the grievance of the petitioner raised in his representation. On above factual matrix he has prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.09.2015 to the extent his probation period has been extended and he has not been granted promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I.

3. The High Court filed its return mainly contending that the petitioner joined his service on 03.03.2012 and on completion of two years of probation on 02.03.2014 his case alongwith respondent No. 3 and other employees were considered, but at the relevant time ACR of the petitioner was not available as he was appointed in the month of February-March, 2012, therefore, work and conduct report was called from concerned reporting authority which was found not good and average, accordingly, the competent authority deferred the matter relating to his confirmation. It has also been contended that again work and conduct report was sought from the reporting authority who reported vide its memo dated 01.07.2015 to be good and he may be confirmed to the post of Translator and accordingly the order dated 09.09.20015 was issued which is legal, justified and in accordance with Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003 (in short “Rules of 2003”), as such the