2026 Supreme(Del) 450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
 
Ashish Chandra Tripathi – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5956 of 2025
Decided On : 19-06-2026
 

A reversion order for a probationer based on unsatisfactory performance remains valid if the underlying adverse performance reports are upheld through the employer's grievance process, even if the formal rejection of the employee's representation occurs after the initial reversion decision.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Probation and Confirmation - Reversion - Petitioner challenged order of reversion from promotional rank due to unsatisfactory probation assessment - Argument raised regarding non-consideration of pending representation against performance reports - Respondents subsequently rejected representation during pendency of petition - Courts are permitted to consider subsequent facts and developments in writ jurisdiction - Once performance ratings are upheld through formal departmental review, the foundation for non-confirmation remains legitimate. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Administrative actions based on professional competency and performance reports are not to be interfered with if the decision-making process is consistent with service statutes - Unless performance assessments are set aside by competent authorities, the employer retains discretion to determine suitability for confirmation. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed to a higher rank on an officiating basis. A committee assessed the petitioner as unfit for confirmation as a result of unsatisfactory performance, professional misconduct, and adverse entries in performance reports. The petitioner filed a writ challenging the reversion, contending that the committee acted prematurely without considering a pending representation regarding specific performance gradings. During the pendency of the litigation, the authorities formally considered and rejected the representation against the performance reports.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the grievance regarding the non-consideration of the representation was mooted because the employer had subsequently adjudicated and rejected the challenge to the adverse reports. The court held that it is entitled to consider subsequent developments that impact the legality of the impugned order. Since the underlying performance assessments were sustained through the established grievance mechanism, the initial reversion based on those reports cannot be faulted.

Issues: Whether the reversion from a promotional rank is illegal if the competent committee failed to consider a pendency representation at the time of the decision, and whether subsequent disposal of said representation cures the procedural irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi: The administrative decision to revert a probationer due to unsatisfactory performance is valid if the adverse performance reports are upheld. The court affirmed that procedural fairness is preserved if the grievance is ultimately addressed, and judicial review will not substitute the employer's assessment of professional suitability where the reports remain unchallenged or sustained.

Result: Petition dismissed.