1 2026:CGHC:5325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2465 of 2023 Gurmeet Singh S/o Rattan Singh Duggal Aged About 45 Years R/o F3B- 1/104 Block -41 Sector 27, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Block 4 D, Ground Floor Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate For State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s) :- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.30 18:56:31 +0530 2 dated 30/06/2022 (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation on the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer in the Department of Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Development from the year 2017 i.e. after completion of 2 years of probation period and consequently amend order dated 07/07/2020 (Annexure P-4). (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, on 21.05.2014, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of “Assistant Public Relation Officer” in the Department of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied for the said post and was duly selected and recommended by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. Vide order dated 30.09.2015, the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years and posted as Assistant Public Relation Officer in the office of the Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development, Raipur. 3. Clause 2(iv) of the appointment order dated 30.09.2015 stipulated that the probationary officer was required to pass the departmental 3 examination during the probation period, failing which the services were liable to be terminated, with a provision for extension of probation by one year. The petitioner passed the departmental examination on 10.01.2020 and vide order dated 07.07.2020, his services were confirmed with effect from 10.01.2020. 4. Soon after issuance of the confirmation order, the petitioner came to know that there was no statutory requirement for passing a departmental examination for confirmation to the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer in the Department of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 25.08.2020 before the Commissioner, seeking confirmation of his services from the date of completion of the probation period, placing reliance upon relevant Government circulars. 5. On receipt of the said representation, the Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development forwarded the matter to the Secretary of the Department vide memo dated 21.10.2020 for appropriate action. After a detailed examination of the matter for more than a year, the Secretary, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development, vide memo dated 23.11.2021, admitted that Clause 2(iv) of the appointment order dated 30.09.2015 was inserted due to a clerical error and sought the opinion of the Commissioner regarding confirmation of the petitioner. 4 6. In response thereto, the Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development, vide memo dated 16.12.2021, conveyed that there was no objection to deletion of Clause 2(iv) of the appointment order dated 30.09.2015 and recommended that a decision regarding confirmation of the petitioner after completion of two years of probation be taken by the State Government. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the Secretary, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development, vide impugned order dated 30.06.2022 (Annexure P-1), rejected the recommendation of the Commissioner for deletion of Clause 2(iv), contrary to the Department’s own earlier recommendation dated 23.11.2021. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.05.2014 issued for the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer. The petitioner participated in the competitive examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, successfully cleared the same, and was accordingly appointed as Assistant Public Relation Officer vide order dated 30.09.2015. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in the said appointment order, a clause was incorporated to the effect that the petitioner would remain on probation for a period of two years and during the probation period he was required to pass the departmental examination; failing which, his probation was liable to be extended 5 for one year, and on further failure to pass the departmental examination, his services were liable to be terminated. 9. It is contended that the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer does not require passing of any departmental examination either under the recruitment rules or under any statutory provision. The said condition could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. The advertisement dated 21.05.2014 also did not stipulate any requirement of passing a departmental examination as a condition precedent for confirmation or continuation in service. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the department itself has admitted this factual and legal position. In this regard, attention of this Court is invited to the communication dated 21.10.2020 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department (Annexure P-6), wherein it has been categorically stated that the post held by the petitioner does not require passing of any departmental examination and that inclusion of such a condition in the appointment order was a procedural error. 11. It is further submitted that the Secretary, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department, vide memo dated 23.11.2021 (Annexure P-7), acknowledged that Clause 2(iv) of the appointment order dated 30.09.2015 was inserted due to a clerical mistake. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department, vide reply dated 6 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-8), clearly stated that the department has no objection to deletion of the said clause and recommended that the petitioner be treated as having satisfactorily completed probation after two years from the date of joining, without insisting upon the departmental examination. 12. In view of the aforesaid admissions and recommendations made by the competent departmental authorities themselves, learned counsel submits that the impugned condition imposed upon the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and liable to be deleted. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be considered as confirmed in service upon completion of the probation period, without imposing the condition of passing the departmental examination. 13. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the condition regarding the passing of the departmental examination was specifically incorporated in the petitioner’s appointment order with full knowledge of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner, at the time of appointment, willingly accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned therein, including the requirement of passing the departmental examination during the probation period. Learned State counsel contends that having voluntarily agreed to the terms of his appointment, the petitioner cannot, at a subsequent stage, 7 challenge or repudiate the said condition. The condition has been imposed in accordance with the appointment order and the established rules of service and is, therefore, valid, lawful, and binding on the petitioner. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this regard. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 15. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the condition regarding passing of the departmental examination during the probation period was not mentioned in the advertisement dated 21.05.2014 for the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer in the Department of Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development. The petitioner, having duly applied for the post and successfully clearing the competitive examination, was appointed vide order dated 30.09.2015. However, the impugned condition was subsequently inserted in the appointment order, stipulating that the petitioner was required to pass the departmental examination during the probation period, failing which the probation period would be extended by one year and, on further failure, the services would stand terminated. 16. It is clear from the record that the post held by the petitioner does not, in fact, require the passing of any departmental examination either under the recruitment rules, departmental regulations, or statutory provisions. This position has been expressly endorsed in 8 the communications placed on record. The Additional Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development Department, in his communication dated 21.10.2020 (Annexure P-6), has categorically stated that the condition was erroneously included in the appointment order and is not applicable to the post held by the petitioner. Similarly, the Commissioner of the Department, in his communication dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-8), confirmed that the department has no objection to the deletion of the said condition and recommended that the petitioner’s services be confirmed after completion of the probation period. 17. From the above, it is apparent that the condition was a clerical or procedural error and not a requirement for the post. The petitioner, having duly completed the probation period and passed the departmental examination in any event, has been adversely affected by the continuation of an invalid and unnecessary condition in the appointment order. 18. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the communications of both the Additional Secretary and the Commissioner of the Department, and the law governing service matters, this Court finds it appropriate and just to direct the authorities to delete Clause 2(iv) from the petitioner’s appointment order. The services of the petitioner shall be deemed confirmed with effect from the date of completion of the probation period, 9 without regard to the departmental examination, which was not a statutory requirement for the post. 19. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The authorities are directed to take immediate steps to effect the confirmation of the petitioner’s services and issue a revised appointment/confirmation order reflecting the deletion of the erroneous condition. 20. All pending proceedings, if any, consequential upon the impugned clause, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh