1 2025:CGHC:57734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7284 of 2018  Sanket Kumar Khandey S/o Mainegar Lal Khandey Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Bija, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Law And Legislative Affairs Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Registrar General High Courtt Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 27-11-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ / writs, order orders to respondents to set aside order dated 24/07/2018 & Endorsement dated 25/07/2018 passed by the respondents in Annexure-P/1 & direct to the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.04 14:29:07 +0530 2 respondents to appoint / rejoin on the post of Higher Judicial Service. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ writs, order / orders to direct the respondents to confirm/ issued certificate to the petitioner on the post of Higher Judicial Service as per sub-Rule 5 of Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment & Conditions of service) Rules -2006. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit w.e.f. date of termination, in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of the present case are that Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 30.7.2013 to fill up vacancies in respect of SC, ST and OBC candidates for the post of District Judge (Entry Level), Examination – 2012. The petitioner appeared in the said examination and was finally selected on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) on 6.5.2014. He was appointed as Ninth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raipur on 26.6.2014 on probation for period of two years and he joined on the said post on 1.7.2014. The petitioner was awarded grade- C in the Annual Confidential Report of year 2014-15. Later on, he was transferred to the post of Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Durg on 17.8.2016. Vide order dated 30.1.2017, period of probation was extended for period of one year. The petitioner was again awarded grade-C in the Annual Confidential Report of year 3 2015-16. Vide order dated 23.9.2017, period of probation was again extended for period of one year. The petitioner was awarded grade-D in the Annual Confidential Report of years 2016- 17 and 2017-18. Petitioner made a representation for upgradation of Annual Confidential Report on 13.7.2018. Meanwhile, Standing Committee of the High Court of Chhattisgarh vide its meeting dated 17.7.2018 resolved to terminate the services of petitioner as he was not found fit for confirmation ; the decision was communicated to Law And Legislative Affairs Department, State of Chhattisgarh and consequently, order impugned was passed on 14.7.2018 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. 3) Mr. Bidya Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was duly appointed as judicial officer and at the relevant time he was working as Additional District Judge, Raipur. He further submits that even if petitioner’s services were not found satisfactory, his services could not be dispensed with by the State Government except on the recommendation of the Full Court of the High Court in view of the provisions contained in Article 235 of the Constitution read with sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh High Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 [for short, ‘The HJS Rules’] He contends that Standing Committee so constituted under Rule 4-A read with Rule 4-C (Chapter I-A) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 [for short, ‘The Rules of 2007’], had no jurisdiction to make recommendation for termination of the petitioner’s services 4 and it is only the Full Court of the High Court which has power and jurisdiction to terminate the services of the probationer, therefore termination of the petitioner’s services only on the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the High Court is absolutely illegal and bad in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of High Court of Chhattisgarh Versus Ganesh Ram Berman and Another [WA No. 281 of 2022] and judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in the matter of Miss. Akanksha Bhardwaj Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others [WPS No. 2206 of 2017]. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for High Court of Chhattisgarh would oppose. He submits that initially, petitioner challenged the order dated 24.7.2018, the decision taken by the State Government whereby services of petitioner were terminated but the recommendation made by the Standing Committee of the High Court has not been challenged by the petitioner. He further submits that though an application for amendment in writ petition was moved but said part has notf been challenged. He contends that the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 were not found satisfactory, therefore a decision was taken by the Standing Committee of the High Court to recommend non-extension of probation and termination of services and such decision was within the domain of the Standing Committee of the 5 High Court according to the Rules of 2007. He further contends that if this Court comes to a conclusion that the order impugned is bad in law, liberty may be reserved in favor of respondent No. 2 to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner and it may be observed that petitioner would not be entitled for back-wages and notional benefits. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. appearing for the State supports the order impugned. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7) Rule 9 of The HJS Rules deals with probation. Rule 9(4) speaks about services of probationer and same is reproduced herein- below:- 9. Probation. – (4) The High Court may, at any time, before the completion of probation or officiation, as the case may be, recommend termination of the service of a direct recruit or recommend reversion of a promotee member of the Service to his substantive post from which he was promoted. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) on probation for period of two years and period of probation was extended twice for period of one-one year and thereafter, Standing Committee of the High Court 6 recommended termination of services of petitioner according to the Rule 9(4) of The HJS Rules. 8) Rule 9(6) of The HJS Rules reads as under :- 9. Probation. – (6) A person appointed on probation, or promoted in the officiating capacity, to the service, shall continue as such until confirmed or terminated or reverted, as the case may be. This rule states that a probationer shall continue on the post until confirmed or terminated. 9) Rule 4-C of The Rules of 2007 deals with powers of Standing Committee, without reference to the Judges. Sub-rule (ix) of Rule 4-C speaks about power of the Standing Committee to pass orders of suspension, initiation of departmental proceedings, etc. which states as under :- 4-C.Standing Committee shall have power, without reference to the Judges generally – (i) to (viii) xxx xxx xxx (ix) to pass orders of suspension, initiation of departmental proceedings against members of the Higher Judicial Service and Subordinate Judicial Service, and consequential orders in the said proceedings other than that of dismissal from service. 10) Rule 4-O of The Rules of 2007 confers certain powers to the Judges at a meeting of the Full Court and specifically, Rule 4-O (i) (b) states that all recommendation for the dismissal from office of Judicial Officer shall be taken by the Judges at a meeting of the 7 Full Court. Thus, it is quite clear that power to terminate the services of a member of High Judicial Service vests with the Full Court of the High Court. In the present case, name of the petitioner was recommended for termination of services by the Standing Committee of the High Court to the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, State of Chhattisgarh and consequently, decision was taken, therefore contention made by Mr. Mishra appears to be correct. 11) Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Miss. Akanksha Bhardwaj (supra) has considered the observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Ganesh Ram Berman (supra). Relevant paras of Miss. Akanksha Bhardwaj (supra) are held as under :- 34. Now this Court has to examine whether the recommendation made by the Standing Committee for termination is within their jurisdiction or not. This issue has already come up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in case of Ganesh Ram Burman (supra) wherein Hon'ble Division Bench has held at paragraph 32 to 34 as under:- "32. In view of the above discussion, there is no escape from the conclusion that the decision of the Standing Committee recommending termination of the service of the petitioner was without jurisdiction. We are fully in accord with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that since the High Court has not made any recommendation in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules of 2006 to terminate the service of the writ petitioner, the order of termination passed by the respondent No.2 on the basis of recommendation of the 8 Standing Committee is unconstitutional, non- est and without authority of law. 33. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. 34. We affirm the order of the learned Single Judge. We further observe that the High Court will take appropriate decision with regard to probation period of the writ petitioner expeditiously." 35. Further submission of the petitioner that ACR of the petitioner which was graded 'D' has been communicated after order dated 31.01.2017 of termination was passed and the same has lost its significance in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Devdutt (supra) & Sukhdev Singh (supra) also deserves to be rejected as the Standing Committee has assessed the overall performance of the petitioner, thereafter impugned order has been passed, which does not vitiate the decision of the Standing Committee not to confirm the petitioner on the count of non-communication of ACR for the year 2015-16. 36. Thus, in view of the above discussion and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the petitioner was probationer and her probation period has not been extended considering the overall performance, which does not require enquiry as the petitioner is not entitled to get protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India but considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Ganesh Ram Berman (supra) wherein the competency of the Standing Committee was questioned and it was held that the Standing Committee was not competent to recommend the case of termination of member of Lower Judicial Service. As such, I am of the view that the decision taken by the Standing Committee on 31.01.2017 recommending the case of the petitioner for termination, deserves to be quashed as it has been 9 issued without competency and on the basis of this recommendation, the order dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. However, the respondents are free to proceed further in accordance with law. 37. Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be reinstated without back-wages with notional seniority as the petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the writ petition that from the date of termination, she remained unemployed, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Pradeep Vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited & others, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 683, wherein it has been held at paragraph 12 as under:- "12. It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises as to whether the backwages is to be given and as to what is to be the extent of backwages, these are matters which will depend on the facts of the case as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In a case where it is found that the employee was not at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal termination or termination which is actually activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him the fruits of the employment which he would have enjoyed but for the illegal / malafide termination. The effort of the Court must be to then to restore the status quo in the manner which is appropriate in the facts of each case. The nature of the charges, the exact reason for the termination as evaluated and, of course, the question as to whether the employee was gainfully employed would be matters which will enter into the consideration by the Court." 12) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Ganesh Ram Berman (supra) and the coordinate Bench in the matter of Miss. Akanksha 10 Bhardwaj (supra) and the aforementioned provisions of law, the order of termination dated 24.7.2018 being unconstitutional, non est and without authority of law is hereby quashed. 13) In view of the above stated analysis, the writ petition is allowed in part reinstating the petitioner on his formal post i.e. District Judge (Entry Level) with continuity of service without back-wages. However, this will not bar respondent No. 2 to proceed in accordance with law, if it deems necessary. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a