Facts
The petitioner, promoted to Assistant Engineer on 28.07.2023, challenged a University order dated 30.04.2026 which confirmed the services of Respondent No. 9 as Assistant Engineer with retrospective effect from 10.11.2017
Source reference: para. 1, 2(a)Respondent No. 9 had been appointed in 2014, but his probation remained unconfirmed for nearly 12 years due to alleged financial irregularities
Source reference: para. 2(a)Previously, Respondent No. 9 had filed WPS No. 6951/2021, where the High Court directed the University to consider his completion of probation within 30 days
Source reference: para. 3(II), 5Acting on that judicial direction, the University issued the impugned confirmation order
Source reference: para. 9The petitioner alleged the retrospective confirmation was illegal and feared losing seniority in future promotions to Executive Engineer
Source reference: para. 2(b)Issues
1. Whether a petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the confirmation of another employee's probation when no personal right has been directly invaded.
Source reference: para. 72. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when filed on the mere apprehension of future loss of seniority (pre-mature litigation).
Source reference: para. 63. Whether the suppression of material facts regarding prior litigation (WPS No. 6951/2021) disentitles the petitioner from seeking equitable relief.
Source reference: para. 9, 10Law Applied
The court applied the principle of locus standi as defined in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others (2001) 4 SCC 734, which mandates that a petitioner must have a personal or individual right that has been prejudicially affected
Source reference: para. 7Regarding probation, the court cited Rule 8(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, stating that probation cannot be extended indefinitely without sufficient reason
Source reference: para. 5Finally, it applied the doctrine of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi as established in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited (2008) 12 SCC 481, holding that a litigant must approach the court with "clean hands" and full disclosure
Source reference: para. 10Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any immediate legal injury, as his challenge was based solely on an "apprehension" that he might be superseded in future promotions
Source reference: para. 6Since the petitioner was promoted to Assistant Engineer only in 2023, while Respondent No. 9 was confirmable from 2017, the court determined the petition was premature
Source reference: para. 6Critically, the Court observed that the petitioner suppressed the fact that the University’s order was passed to comply with a specific High Court direction in a previous writ petition (WPS No. 6951/2021)
Source reference: para. 3(II), 9The Court reasoned that since government employees cannot be kept on probation indefinitely under the 1961 Rules, the University’s retrospective confirmation was a lawful exercise of administrative power following judicial mandate
Source reference: para. 5, 11Holding
The Court dismissed the petition at the motion stage, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as no fundamental or acquired rights were directly invaded
The Court further held that the petition was liable for dismissal due to the concealment of material facts regarding the prior court order. The University’s action in confirming Respondent No. 9’s service was found to be legal and devoid of infirmity. Relief was denied.
Source reference: para. 9, 11Original Court PDF
HIMALAY THAWANIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in