Upon confirmation in service, the period of probation relates back to the date of initial appointment, and such service must be reckoned as continuous service in the feeder cadre for the purposes of calculating seniority and promotion eligibility, unless specific rules explicitly state otherwise.

06/04/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :-

10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue the writ (s)/order (s)/ direction (s) to respondent authorities to decide the representations dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure P/1 Colly.) present by the petitioner in a time bound manner.

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue the direction to respondent authorities to grant the promotion to the petitioner from the year 2018 in the post of Assistant District Public Prosecutor (ADPO) and subsequential benefits arising from the same.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kind enough to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III pursuant to the order of appointment dated 15.10.2012. Respondents authorities have issued letter to petitioner on 18.06.2025 informing that petitioner has been confirmed in service after successfully completion of probation period vide its letter dated 18.06.2025. Probation period has been completed on 10.06.2024 and petitioner was confirmed in service vide order dated 10.06.2024 of the Directorate. Services of petitioner is governed by Chhattisgarh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008. According to Schedule-II, 10% post of Assistant Public Prosecution Officer is to be filled up by promoting Class-III employee possessed with degree of Law. Petitioner is graduate of Law, therefore, name of petitioner was initially considered for promotion by DPC initially in the year 2018, however, he was not recommended for promotion mentioning that petitioner has not completed 7 years of service as on 01.01.2018. Name of petitioner was again considered by DPC for promotion in the year 2019, however, his name was not recommended for promotion mentioning that petitioner is still in probation and petitioner has not been confirmed in service. Petitioner has been confirmed in service in the year 2024, therefore, petitioner was hopeful that he will be recommended for promotion in the next DPC to be convened. The next DPC was convened on 07.01.2026 in which name of 13 employees were considered and all employees have been held to be non-suitable for the reasons assigned therein. In front of name of petitioner, it is only mentioned “non-suitable’. No reasons has been assigned as to why he could not be promoted. From the earlier proceedings of DPC of the year 2018 and 2019, it is appearing that petitioner could not be recommended for promotion only because petitioner has not completed 7 years of service and in subsequent DPC because petitioner has not been confirmed in service. On the date of meeting convened by DPC dated 07.01.2026, petitioner has completed more than 13 years of service as Class-III employee, therefore, petitioner was eligible for his consideration for promotion. No enquiry is pending against petitioner nor any show cause notice levelling any allegation has been issued, therefore, petitioner is eligible for recommending his name to be promoted for his promotion on the post of Assistant Public Prosecution Officer. Proceedings of DPC is erroneous so far as it relates to consideration of name of petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that in the reply specific stand has been taken that petitioner has not completed 7 years of service on Class-III post from the date of his confirmation.

4. I have h