Rejection of representation against adverse probation reports validates reversion despite allegations of procedural haste.

The Petitioner, an Inspector (General Duty) in the Border Security Force (BSF), was appointed as Assistant Commandant (GD) on an officiating/probationary basis after qualifying for the 2017-18 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

On 30.01.2025, a Departmental Confirmation Committee (DCC) assessed his suitability for confirmation and found him "Not Yet Fit" due to adverse Six Monthly Performance Assessment Reports (SMPAR) between 2022 and 2024, citing arrogance, poor administrative interest, and disobedience of lawful commands.

Consequently, via an order dated 22.04.2025, the Petitioner was reverted to his original rank of Inspector.

The Petitioner challenged this reversion, alleging it was premature as his representation against the final SMPAR was still pending when the DCC met.

1. Whether the reversion of a probationer is legally sustainable if the DCC relies on adverse performance reports while a representation against those reports is pending.

2. Whether the administrative action of reversion met the standards of fairness and reasonableness as per the principles of natural justice.

Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) OM No. 28020/3/2018-Estt-(C) dated 11.03.2019 and MHA guidelines regarding the assessment of probationers for confirmation.

The principle that administrative actions with civil consequences must be just, fair, and reasonable, as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.

The procedural principle that subsequent developments (such as the eventual rejection of a representation) can be considered by a writ court when determining the validity of an impugned order.

The Petitioner argued that the BSF acted "hurriedly" by convening the DCC on 30.01.2025, before his one-month window to represent against the final SMPAR had expired.

The Court acknowledged that while this argument appeared valid initially, subsequent facts showed the BSF eventually considered and rejected the Petitioner’s representation on 11.07.2025.

The Court reasoned that since the representations against all three adverse SMPARs were now officially rejected, the underlying basis for the "Not Yet Fit" assessment remained intact.

The Court highlighted that the Petitioner had already challenged the SMPAR gradings in a separate pending writ petition; until those gradings are actually set aside, the reversion order remains valid and based on the existing record of unsatisfactory performance during probation.

The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the Petitioner, noting they did not apply to the specific facts where a probationer failed to complete the period satisfactorily.

The Court answered the issues by stating that although the DCC acted before the representation period ended, the subsequent rejection of said representation validated the decision.

The Petitioner’s failure to complete his probation period satisfactorily justified the reversion to the post of Inspector (GD). No relief was granted.