The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an appeal from a translator who challenged delayed confirmation and an alleged unfair promotion of a junior colleague. In a Division Bench judgment delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, the court upheld the Single Judge’s order that had dismissed the original writ petition, finding no illegality in the authority’s decision to defer confirmation while awaiting assessment of the appellant’s work and conduct.
The dispute began after the High Court advertised and filled translator posts in early 2012. The appellant and another appointee joined probationary service on the same dates, but the colleague was confirmed and later promoted ahead of the appellant. The appellant argued that his Annual Confidential Report showed no adverse entries and that any evaluation used against him should have been communicated so he could respond. He also argued that appointment terms inconsistent with statutory service rules cannot override those rules.
The court reviewed the appointment order, the rules governing confirmation, and the records of the reporting authority. The appointment letter expressly stated that the probationary period would continue until a formal order of confirmation. The Bench relied on Rule 10(2) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003, observing that completion of probation and the availability of a permanent post are necessary preconditions for confirmation and that the employer may legitimately assess work and conduct before giving confirmation.
On the specific question of whether a so-called “work and conduct report” could be used in place of an ACR, the court distinguished the two. It accepted that an ACR is a formal yearly evaluation while a work and conduct report is an operational input on an employee’s day-to-day performance and productivity. The Bench found that the reporting authority initially rated the appellant’s work and conduct as not good or only average, and later revised that view to “good,” after which the appellant was confirmed effective September 9, 2015. The court held that the employer was entitled to rely on such inputs when assessing a probationer’s suitability for confirmation.
The appellant’s claim for promotion to Assistant Grade-I from an earlier date was also rejected. Because confirmation on the translator post occurred with effect from September 9, 2015, the court found the appellant was not qualified for a promotion dated January 27, 2015. The Bench held there was no parity with the colleague who had been confirmed earlier and was therefore eligible for promotion under the merit cum seniority criteria.
In dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench concluded there was no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Single Judge’s findings. The court emphasized the administering authority’s discretion to evaluate probationary performance and the applicability of the High Court’s 2003 service rules in determining confirmation and promotion. The writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 826
Case Details : WA No. 743 of 2025, Shailendra Soni vs High Court of chhattisgarh and Others
Counsel : For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For the Respondents/High Court : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate
