Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The petitioner is an employee of this Court. He joined the service as Routine Grade Assistant on 19.11.1996. He was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant in December, 1999 and was placed on probation. In the year 2005, he was considered for confirmation, but was not found suitable and consequently, the matter relating thereto was deferred. Again in October, 2007 a Committee constituted by the Registrar General considered the petitioner as well as other employees working on probation for their services being confirmed. The service of the petitioner was again not found to be satisfactory and the matter relating thereto was again deferred. The petitioner filed representation before the Registrar General, who is Appointing Authority of the petitioner. On 15.10.2008, the Registrar General rejected the representation holding that overall conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. For such purpose, he inter alia took into consideration a warning entry issued to him on 19.7.2007 on the basis of a departmental inquiry. Its communication to the petitioner by the Joint Registrar (Establishment) on 22.10.2008 is subject-matter of challenge in the instant petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to confirm his services since December 2000 and to promote him from 31.8.2007, the date from which his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, by an office order dated 17.4.2009, the service of the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Assistant Review Officer from the date of the order, subject to decision of the instant writ petition. The aforesaid order, in so far as it denies confirmation of service of the petitioner since December, 2000, is also under challenge, by getting the petition amended. Following the order of confirmation, by another order dated 31.5.2010 passed by Registrar General, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Review Officer, subject to seniority being fixed as per decision in the instant writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that under the Service Rules the period of probation prescribed is one year and since no order was passed extending the period of probation and consequently, he would be deemed to have been confirmed in December, 2000. It is urged that the probation could be extended by a maximum period of three years, which expired in December, 2003. Thereafter, his services would be deemed to have been confirmed. There was no justification in not confirming him in the year 2005 or in postponing the issue relating to confirmation on the ground that his services had not been found to be satisfactory. It is urged that the same mistake was committed when the respondent refused to confirm the petitioner in October, 2007. It is further submitted that at the relevant time there was no adverse entry in preceding five years. The solitary adverse entry of the year 2001-02, being an entry more than five years old, could not be made basis for not confirming the petitioner and in denying promotion to him. The warning issued by the Registrar General by order dated 12.6.2007 also could not form basis for withholding confirmation or denying promotion to the petitioner inasmuch as a warning is neither an adverse entry nor a punishment under the Service Rules. It is pointed out that a preliminary inquiry in another matter which also formed the basis for denying confirmation, has culminated in favour of the petitioner and thus, the same could not have been the basis for denying confirmation in service. It is urged that the respondent had acted in a discriminatory manner in promoting since 31.8.2007, a number of persons junior to the petitioner, even though in respect of two of the employees namely Pankaj Mishra and Pankaj Kushwaha adverse entries were also there.

3.