Caste-certificate scrutiny cannot extend probation beyond Rule 10A’s four-year maximum.

The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Unarmed), Class-I, on 14 October 2017, subject to a two-year probation under Rule 10A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967.

He completed the prescribed training and examinations.

In March 2022, while officers from his batch were granted regular appointments, his probation was extended because verification of his Scheduled Tribe certificate remained pending.

The Scrutiny Committee cancelled his certificate in October 2025; the High Court stayed that order and restrained coercive action in separate proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the probation extension and sought confirmation with consequential benefits.

Whether the petitioner’s probation could be continued beyond the maximum period permitted by Rule 10A because his caste certificate was under verification.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed confirmation and consequential service benefits, subject to the outcome of the caste-verification proceedings.

Rule 10A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 prescribes two years’ probation for direct recruits to Class-I and Class-II posts and permits the appointing authority to extend probation by no more than a further two years, subject to the stated exception concerning failure to pass a required departmental examination for reasons beyond the probationer’s control.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1517 of 2022, which applied the principles in Wasim Beg, Dharam Singh and C.M. Rathod, the Court held that where the rules impose a maximum probation period and provide no further extension mechanism, deemed confirmation follows upon expiry of that maximum period.

The petitioner had completed the prescribed training and examinations, and no departmental inquiry, charge-sheet or misconduct allegation was pending against him; the sole stated reason for extending probation was the pending verification of his caste certificate.

Applying Rule 10A and the Division Bench’s interpretation, the Court held that the verification proceedings did not permit the respondents to continue the petitioner on probation beyond the statutory maximum.

The petitioner was therefore entitled to be treated as confirmed, while the confirmation and resulting benefits remained subject to the final outcome of the Scrutiny Committee proceedings.

The direction was expressly made conditional on the final outcome of the caste-verification proceedings; the Rule was made absolute to that extent.