1 2026:CGHC:15672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10635 of 2025 1 - Aalok Ghosh S/o Late Shri Kamal Krishna Ghosh Aged About 46 Years Currently Working As Assistant Grade 03, Office Of Deputy Director, Public Prosecution, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Director Directorate Of Public Prosecution, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 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 3 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 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Claim of petitioner is that petitioner has been appointed on the regular post vide order dated 15.10.2012 on probation. Annexure P-19 filed along with writ petition, which is the proceedings recorded by the competent authority for considering name of Class-III employee for their promotion on the post of Assistant Public Prosecution Officer, wherein name of petitioner could not be considered mentioning that on 01.01.2018, petitioner has not completed 7 years of service. The relaxation is sought for his posting in the schedule area and further observed that probation period has not been completed and petitioner has not been confirmed in service. The documents enclosed at Page No.86 which is part of Annexure P-19 is the proceedings of promotion initiated by DPC on 30.01.2019. Name of petitioner though considered in this DPC proceedings also, however, it is mentioned that on 01.01.2019, though petitioner has completed requisite period of service in feeder cadre of 7 years, however, petitioner has not been confirmed and still working as probationer. The documents filed along with writ petition Annexure P-16 would show that Directorate have passed an order on 10.06.2024 confirming petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade-III and directed the end of probation period. From the aforementioned facts of the case, it is appearing that petitioner is permanent employee appointed on probation on vacant post of Assistant Grade-III. Once petitioner has been confirmed in service, his period of service is to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the length of service in the feeder cadre from the date of his initial appointment i.e. Class-III post. The next DPC was initiated on 5 07.01.2026 on the said date petitioner has completed more than 13 years of service as Assistant Grade-III employee. DPC in its meeting dated 07.01.2026 has considered the name of 13 Class-III employees including petitioner, who has been named at Sr.No.8. In front of his name, it is only mentioned that petitioner was found to be non-suitable for promotion, no reason has been assigned as to why he has been found to be non-suitable. Though specific reasons has been assigned for the most of the candidates considered for their promotion by DPC. 6. Order of confirmation of petitioner after completion of probation period passed by the competent authority dated 18.06.2025 is filed by respondents along with reply as Annexure R-1. In the said order of confirmation, there is no mention that what will be the status of period of service, which petitioner rendered pursuant to his appointment on 15.10.2012 and joining of service on 25.10.2012 till 18.06.2025, which is an order of competent authority confirming the petitioner in service after completion of probation. 7. Respondents in their reply have also not mentioned any provision of law or referred any rule or regulation in support of their contention to state that in view of such rule or provision under the law, length of service of employee is to be counted from date of his confirmation in service and not from the date of initial appointment. In absence of any specific rule, provision or regulation, upon confirmation of employee it shall relate back to the date on which the petitioner was appointed. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G.P. Doval & Others. Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1984) 4 SCC 6 329, while considering the issue of seniority and promotion raised by petitioner therein observed thus :- “15. Now if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well-settled that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority. The question is: from what date the service is to be reckoned? It was urged that any appointment of a stopgap nature or pending the selection by Public Service Commission cannot be taken into account for reckoning seniority. In other words, it was urged that to be in the cadre and to enjoy place in the seniority list, the service rendered in a substantive capacity can alone be taken into consideration. We find it difficult to accept this bald and wide submission. Each case will depend upon its facts and circumstances. If a stopgap appointment is made and the appointee appears before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the candidates and is selected, we see no justification for ignoring his past service. At any rate, there is no justification for two persons selected in the same manner being differently treated. That becomes crystal clear from the place assigned in the seniority list to Petitioner 1 in relation to Respondent 7. In fact if once a person appointed in a stopgap arrangement is confirmed in his post by proper selection, his past service has to be given credit and he has to be assigned seniority accordingly unless a rule to the contrary is made. That has not been done in the case of all the petitioners. The error is apparent in the case of Petitioner 1 and Respondent 7. These errors can be multiplied but we consider it unnecessary to do so. In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stopgap arrangement is followed by confirmation. This view which we are taking is borne out by the decision of this Court in Baleshwar 7 Dass v. State of U.P. [(1980) 4 SCC 226 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 531 : (1981) 1 SCR 449 : 1981 UPSC 15 : (1981) 1 LLJ 140] wherein this Court observed that the principle which has received the sanction of this Court's pronouncement is that “officiating service in a post for all practical purposes of seniority is as good as service on a regular basis. It may be permissible, within limits for Government to ignore officiating service and count only regular service when claims of seniority come before it, provided the rules in that regard are clear and categorical and do not admit of any ambiguity and cruelly arbitrary cut-off of long years of service does not take place or there is functionally and qualitatively, substantial difference in the service rendered in the two types of posts'. It was said that service rules will have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. It is thus well- settled that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list. Admittedly, that has not been done and the seniority list is drawn up from the date on which the approva1/selection was made by the Public Service Commission in respect of each member of the service, which is clearly violative of Article 16, and any seniority list drawn up on this invalid basis must be quashed.” 9. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 287 observed thus :- “15. It is now well settled that even in cases of probation or officiating appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment 8 or on probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list. Where the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure and such appointee is approved later on, the approval would mean his confirmation by the authority and shall relate back to the date on which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of continuous officiation. In this regard we fortify our view by the judgment of this Court in G.P. Doval v. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P. [(1984) 4 SCC 329 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 767].” 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when petitioner is appointed on sanctioned vacant post in regular recruitment proceedings on 15.10.2012 on probation, as soon as probation period is completed and employee is confirmed in service by passing order in this regard, for the purpose of considering the requisite period of service in feeder cadre it is to be considered from the first date of appointment and joining on the post in the feeder cadre. Petitioner have joined the service on 25.10.2012, therefore, on the date of holding of DPC petitioner has completed more than 7 years of service. Observation made by the DPC so far as it relates to petitioner holding him to be non-suitable for promotion without assigning any reason in the opinion of this court is not sustainable and is erroneous. 11. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to convene review DPC within a period of two months from today and thereafter to reconsider the candidature of petitioner for his promotion on the post of Assistant Public Prosecution Officer considering the period of service of petitioner from 25.10.2012 9 till 07.01.2026 as a Class-III employee and to grant promotion if he is otherwise found suitable. If for any reason DPC concludes that the candidature of petitioner is not suitable for promotion, than reasons in this regard is to be assigned. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram