Deemed Confirmation Is A Perilous Concept: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Against Discharge Of Judge From Probationary Service

The Punjab & Haryana High Court while dismissing the petition challenging discharge of a judge from his probationary service observed that deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking quashing the recommendations by which probationary services of the Petitioner on the post of Civil Judge at the entry level have been recommended to be dispensed with by the High Court and order discharging him from his probationary service.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed, "If deemed confirmation is brought into play, notwithstanding the adverse remarks including that of ‘integrity doubtful’ based on the lackluster performance, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner, then, an anomalous situation would arise where the probationer despite being unfit for confirmation, is deemed to be confirmed, bringing into the service a Judge of doubtful integrity, whose service record is tainted with adverse remarks. This would be deleterious to the very concept of probity on which the entire judicial system stands."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sunil Kumar Nehra while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge in 2008 in the Haryana Civil Services in terms of Rule 7-B of Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1951 on two years’ probation. The assessment and review of the work and conduct of the Petitioner during his probation was put up before the Administrative Judge and thereafter before the concerned Administrative Committee in 2011. The Committee deferred the matter of his confirmation till the finalization of certain complaints received against him and the same was approved by the Full Court.

The Administrative Committee yet again took up the matter of the Petitioner for confirmation in 2012 and recommended for extension of the period of probation qua the petitioner for six months in the backdrop of the remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the years 2010-11 being below average (C) ‘integrity doubtful’ and the same was affirmed by the Full Court.

One of the essential grounds raised by the Petitioner in support of the challenge to the order of discharge is that proviso to Rule 7.3 of the Rules of 1951 ought to be read in the attending facts and circumstances of the case to mean that after completion of the period of probation of two years plus the extended period of one year and in the backdrop of available vacancies in the cadre, the Petitioner ought to have been deemed to be confirmed.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that deemed confirmation is anarchy which has been given up long time ago in service jurisprudence. It further observed that Rule 7.3 proviso clearly stipulates that mere completion of maximum period of three years’ probation would not confer on the probationers, the right to be confirmed till there is a permanent vacancy in the cadre.

It stressed that Rule 7.3, if read objectively keeping in mind the objects sought to be achieved, it clearly stipulates that confirmation is not only subject to availability of vacancy but also to all important attending aspects of the probationers conduct and work being satisfactory which element in the present case was absent.

"The concept of probation is to enable the Employer to analyse the work, conduct and behaviour of the appointee during the period of probation to come to a conclusion whether the probationer is suitable to be continued by confirmation in service. This power cannot be taken away from the Employer on the anvil of the concept of deemed confirmation. Deemed confirmation is a perilous concept in service jurisprudence which has long been discarded since it erodes into the power of the Employer to assess work, conduct and behaviour of the probationer," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Ankur Lal vs. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and another (2025:PHHC:074706-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate Rahil Mahajan, Advocate Akash Gahlawat, Advocate Viren Nehra, Advocate Arjun Dosanj

Respondent- Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate KDS Hooda, Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan

Click here to read/ download Order