Confirmation in Central Government Service

Confirmation in service is the express order by which the appointing authority declares a central government employee to hold a post substantively, issued once in the entry grade after satisfactory completion of probation, and delinked from the availability of a permanent vacancy by the Department of Personnel and Training with effect from 1 April 1988.

That sentence disposes of most of what establishment folklore still says about the subject. Confirmation is not a reward, not a promotion, and not a stage that recurs at every grade. It happens once. It does not wait for a permanent post to fall vacant, and it does not fix seniority.

The order matters for a narrower set of things than most employees assume, and for one thing more than most departments admit. It gives the employee a substantive title to the post and a lien on it, and it moves the employee out of the class of people whose service can be ended by a month’s notice or by a discharge for unsuitability. The rest of what is popularly attached to confirmation, seniority, eligibility for promotion, the House Building Advance, was either detached in 1988 or never depended on it.

This article covers what the confirmation order does, the scheme that existed before 1988 and why it was scrapped, the training and departmental examinations that condition it, the committee and the vigilance clearance that precede the order, the power to discharge or revert instead of confirming, the case law on whether confirmation can ever be implied from continuance in the post, the position of an officer in a post for which the recruitment rules prescribe no probation at all, and the position of an employee for whom no order was ever issued. Probation itself, the period, its extension, and discharge at the end of it, is treated in its own article.

What the confirmation order does

Confirmation converts an appointment into a substantive one. A substantive appointment is one to a post held in the servant’s own right rather than in an officiating, temporary or probationary capacity, and it is the foundation of the title the Fundamental Rules call a lien.

The instrument is an order in writing issued by the appointing authority, the authority competent to make substantive appointments to the post. Paragraph 24 of the Department of Personnel and Training Master Circular No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C) dated 11 March 2019 states the requirement in one sentence: a specific order of confirmation should be issued when the case is cleared from all angles. There is no prescribed form. There is a prescribed consequence, which is that nothing short of the order will do.

Two things follow that are worth separating at the outset, because conflating them produces most of the litigation in this area. The first is that confirmation is an administrative act, discretionary in timing but not in substance once the conditions are met. The second is that the end of the probation period and the act of confirmation are different events, separated in the ordinary case by the weeks it takes the committee to meet and the vigilance section to reply.

The scheme before 1988

Until 1 April 1988 an employee was confirmed separately in every grade, and confirmation in any grade could happen only against a sanctioned permanent post. The date on which a particular officer became permanent was therefore a function of departmental arithmetic rather than of the officer’s record. A department with few permanent posts kept competent officers unconfirmed for years; a department with many confirmed them quickly.

Three further consequences rode on that scheme. Seniority in a grade ran from the order of confirmation, so the same arithmetic distorted seniority lists. Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes operated at the stage of confirmation as well as at recruitment. And an intermediate status existed for those not yet confirmed, quasi-permanent service, conferred by a declaration under Rule 3 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and carrying its own protection against termination under the then Rule 7.

A Task Force set up by the Ministry of Finance in 1976 examined the arrangement. The reform it produced took twelve years to issue.

The delinking order of 28 March 1988

Office Memorandum No. 18011/1/86-Estt.(D) dated 28 March 1988 rebuilt the subject, with effect from 1 April 1988. Four decisions in it still govern.

Confirmation was delinked from the availability of a permanent vacancy. An employee is confirmed on the merits of the case, not on the count of sanctioned permanent posts.

Confirmation became a once-in-a-career event in the entry grade. Paragraph 24 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 restates it: confirmation will be done only once in the service of an officer, in the entry grade post, service or cadre, and a further confirmation is necessary only where there is a fresh entry subsequently into any other post, service or cadre by direct recruitment or otherwise.

Seniority ceased to depend on confirmation. Seniority was directed to be regulated by paragraph 23 of the consolidated seniority orders issued as Office Memorandum No. 22011/7/86-Estt.(D) dated 3 July 1986, a position reiterated by Office Memorandum No. 20011/5/90-Estt.(D) dated 4 November 1992 and now consolidated in Office Memorandum No. 20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated 11 November 2010, which reproduces the discontinuance at paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 for direct recruits and promotees alike.

Lien was redefined. It represents only the right or title of a government servant to hold a regular post, whether permanent or temporary, to which the servant has been appointed on a regular basis, and it is enjoyed by a person who has been confirmed, by a person promoted and declared to have completed probation, and by a person promoted on a regular basis to a post where no probation is prescribed.

Two categories sit outside the scheme. It does not apply to an ad hoc appointment, and it does not apply to purely temporary organisations, where there is no permanent cadre to be confirmed into.

The instructions in force

The operative consolidated instruction is the Master Circular No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C) dated 11 March 2019, issued by the Establishment (C) division. It runs to 28 paragraphs and supersedes the earlier consolidated instructions in Office Memorandum No. 28020/1/2010-Estt.(C) dated 21 July 2014, whose appendix of source orders reaches back to Office Memorandum No. 44/1/59-Ests(A) dated 15 April 1959.

The 28 paragraphs sit under seven headings, and confirmation gets the last of them. The headings run probation (paragraphs 1 to 8), mandatory induction training (paragraph 9), period of probation (paragraph 10, with the two lettered notes that follow its table), leave to a probationer and a person on probation (paragraphs 11 to 14), extension of the probation period (paragraphs 15 to 18), termination of probation (paragraphs 19 to 23), and confirmation (paragraphs 24 to 28). Two paragraphs are therefore filed away from where a reader would look for them. Paragraph 17, which directs that a probationer who has completed probation to the satisfaction of the Central Government and is required to be confirmed shall be confirmed in the service or post at the end of the probation period, sits under the extension heading. Paragraph 25, which is a power to discharge or revert, sits under the confirmation heading.

Paragraph 21 puts the department under a duty of timeliness in one sentence: in order to ensure that delays do not occur in confirmation, timely action must be initiated in advance so that the time limit is adhered to. Read with paragraph 17, that obliges the department to start the case before the probation period ends rather than after it. Neither paragraph creates an automatic confirmation, because paragraph 24 still requires the specific order.

A caution on file numbers. The number 28020/1/2010-Estt.(C) also carries the consolidated guidelines on technical resignation and lien dated 17 August 2016, so the two are told apart by date rather than by number. A draft of the Master Circular circulated on 2 July 2018 under the same number as the final, and several aggregator sites host the draft. Cite the order dated 11 March 2019.

The Department of Personnel and Training issued a consolidated information document on probation and confirmation dated 24 November 2022. It restates the delinking, the once-only entry-grade confirmation, and the timeline, and it does not purport to supersede the Master Circular.

Training and examinations as a condition

A probationer who has not passed the prescribed departmental examination or completed the prescribed training cannot be confirmed, because satisfactory completion of probation is what paragraph 24 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 requires and the examination is written into that test. Paragraph 8 of the same Master Circular permits the government to require a probationer to undergo such courses of training and instruction and to pass such examinations and tests, including an examination in Hindi, as the government may deem fit, as a condition for the satisfactory completion of probation.

The consequence of failing to clear them is extension rather than an immediate discharge. Paragraph 15 provides that where a probationer has not undergone the requisite training course or passed the requisite departmental examinations prescribed, the period of probation may be extended by such period or periods as may be necessary, subject to the total period of probation not exceeding double the prescribed period. The outer limit is therefore the same one paragraph 27 uses, and a probationer who has still not passed at the end of it has run out of extension rather than earned a confirmation.

Passing is necessary and not sufficient. Paragraph 4 directs that concentration on the probationer’s ability to pass the probationary or departmental examination should be an essential part of the qualification for confirmation, and that a very careful assessment of outlook, character and aptitude for the kind of work to be done should be made before a probationer is confirmed. A department that treats the examination result as the whole of the test has read half the paragraph.

The Departmental Confirmation Committee

The body that considers a confirmation case is a Departmental Confirmation Committee, and it is not the same thing as a Departmental Promotion Committee even though the two share a constitution and a body of instructions. The distinction is set out in paragraph 1.1 of the Department of Personnel and Training guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees, currently the compilation issued as Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1721625311004 dated 22 July 2024, which records that a Departmental Confirmation Committee needs to be constituted in addition, for considering cases of confirmation.

Its remit covers confirmation of direct recruits in their entry grades, confirmation of those promoted where the promotion involves a change of Group, and confirmation of officers re-employed before the age of superannuation. Separately it assesses the work and conduct of probationers for retention, discharge or extension of probation.

What the committee produces is not a ranking. Under paragraph 8 of Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10 April 1989, the consolidated instructions on Departmental Promotion Committees and related matters, the committee grades each officer Fit or Not yet fit for confirmation on the service record, which in practice means the probation reports and the appraisal reports for the probation period and any extension. A comparative merit exercise would be meaningless here, because confirmation is not a competition for a limited number of slots.

Composition follows the Departmental Promotion Committee rules. For Group A and Group B posts, the members must be officers at least one level above the post in which the promotion or confirmation is to be made. That rule comes from Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10 April 1989 itself, and is collected in the compilation of 22 July 2024; it is the whole of the central rule on rank, because the number of members is fixed post by post in Column 12 of the Schedule to the recruitment rules.

Vigilance clearance before the order

Approval by the committee does not by itself produce the order. Paragraph 17.1 of Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10 April 1989, collected in the compilation of 22 July 2024, requires clearance from the vigilance section before the actual promotion or confirmation of an officer approved by the committee, to establish that no disciplinary proceedings are pending. The current consolidated instruction on the subject is Office Memorandum No. 104/33/2024-AVD-IA dated 9 October 2024, which revised the guidelines on grant of vigilance clearance to members of the All India Services and of the Central Civil Services and replaced the consolidated instruction dated 28 September 2022. That instruction also made confirmation in service a listed occasion for vigilance clearance in its own right, at paragraph 7(vii), which it had not been under the 2022 or the 2007 texts.

The sealed cover procedure is a related but distinct mechanism, and the distinction is worth stating precisely because it is often blurred. That procedure comes from Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14 September 1992, issued after the Supreme Court decided Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, on 27 August 1991. It is written in terms of promotion. Its three trigger categories are an officer under suspension, an officer to whom a charge sheet has been issued with disciplinary proceedings pending, and an officer against whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. The threshold is the issue of the charge memo; suspicion, a preliminary investigation, or the grant of sanction for prosecution does not reach it.

What operates at the confirmation stage, then, is the vigilance-clearance requirement together with the direction in paragraph 24 that the case be cleared from all angles. A pending proceeding defeats that condition on its own terms without any need to invoke the sealed cover.

Discharge or reversion instead of confirmation

Confirmation is one of three outcomes, and the power to take the other two sits inside the confirmation part of the Master Circular. Paragraph 25 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 provides that if, during the period of probation or any extension of it, the government is of the opinion that an officer is not fit for permanent appointment, the government may either discharge the officer or revert the officer to the post held before the appointment to the service.

Two features of that power decide most of the litigation about it. It is exercisable during probation or an extension, so it closes once probationary status has ended, whether by confirmation or by the paragraph 27 deeming. And the choice between discharge and reversion turns on where the officer came from: a direct recruit has no earlier post to be reverted to and is discharged, while a promotee is sent back to the grade held before promotion.

Paragraph 20 supplies what has to happen first. On the expiry of the probation period the appointing authority is to obtain the assessment reports on the probationer, and then either confirm the probationer or issue orders regarding satisfactory termination of probation, or else extend the probation, discharge the probationer or terminate the services in accordance with the relevant rules. An adverse decision taken without those reports has no material behind it, which is the commonest ground on which a discharge from service is set aside.

The date confirmation takes effect

Paragraph 27 of the Master Circular fixes the date of effect as the day following the date of satisfactory completion of the prescribed period of probation, or of the extended period where probation was extended. The order is therefore declaratory as to date even though it is constitutive as to status. An order signed in November for a probation that ended on 12 March takes effect from 13 March.

The same paragraph carries three more directions that are easy to lose behind the date rule. The decision to confirm the probationer or to extend the probation is to be communicated to the probationer normally within six to eight weeks. Probation is not to be extended for more than a year at a time. And in no circumstance is an employee to be kept on probation for more than double the normal prescribed period of probation, which is the ceiling the deeming provision described next is measured from.

Deemed confirmation, and why it does not arise here

Two propositions travel under similar names and mean different things.

Deemed successful completion of probation is administrative. Paragraph 27 provides that an officer will be deemed to have successfully completed probation if no order confirming, discharging or reverting the officer is issued within eight weeks after the expiry of double the normal period of prescribed probation. What that produces is the end of probationary status. It does not produce a confirmation, because paragraph 24 requires a specific order.

Deemed confirmation is judicial, and it turns on the wording of the rules governing the particular service. In High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, a three-Judge Bench sorted the authorities into three classes in paragraph 11.

The second class is the Dharam Singh line, from State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210, decided by a Constitution Bench on 2 February 1968, where the rules fixed one year of probation extendable to a total of three years and the employees were allowed to continue beyond three years without any order. Central civil posts governed by the Master Circular fall in the third class, because paragraph 24 requires the specific order. Continuance past the outer limit therefore ends probationary status under paragraph 27 and confirms nobody.

Satya Narayan Jhavar also settled a conflict by overruling Dayaram Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 443, which had treated an officer as confirmed on expiry of the maximum probation period where no order of termination had issued. Dayaram Dayal is cited in older material and is no longer good law on the point.

Two later decisions apply the third class directly. In Head Master, Lawrence School, Lovedale v. Jayanthi Raghu, (2012) 4 SCC 793, decided on 16 March 2012, the Court held that the words “if confirmed” in a service rule import a condition precedent, so expiry of the maximum probation period does not by itself confer confirmed status. In Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School v. J.A.J. Vasu Sena, decided on 21 August 2019, the Court held in paragraph 49 that where a rule stipulates a condition precedent to the issuance of a confirmation order, the continuation of the services of a probationer beyond the period of probation does not amount to a deemed confirmation of service, and in paragraph 38 that substantive appointment follows only on the issue of the order.

Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra, (1991) 3 SCC 325, decided on 16 April 1991, is cited in this area for the proposition that the power to extend probation must rest on a rule and be followed by a positive act within a reasonable time. It should be used with care: in Punjab National Bank v. Astamija Dash the Supreme Court recorded that Dharam Singh and Ashok Kumar Misra state the principles differently.

Article 311 does not depend on confirmation

The most persistent misconception in this subject is that constitutional protection arrives with the confirmation order. It does not.

In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, a Constitution Bench of five Judges held on 1 November 1957 that just as Article 310 makes no distinction between permanent and temporary members of the services, so Article 311 makes no distinction between the two classes, both of which are within its protection. Contrary High Court decisions were expressly overruled. A probationer, a temporary servant and a confirmed servant are all protected by Article 311.

What differs is whether a given order is a punishment at all. Dhingra laid down two tests: whether the servant had a right to the post or the rank, and whether the servant has been visited with evil consequences such as forfeiture of pay or allowances, loss of seniority in the substantive rank, or stoppage of future promotion. A person substantively appointed to a permanent post has a right to the post, so ending that service is itself a punishment and attracts Article 311(2). A probationer or an officiating appointee has no such right, so termination for unsuitability is not by itself a punishment. The Court added that the use of the expression “terminate” or “discharge” is not conclusive.

Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, decided by a seven-Judge Bench on 23 August 1974, refined the test into the distinction the courts still apply. What is decisive is whether the order is really by way of punishment. Where misconduct is the motive for a bona fide assessment of unsuitability, Article 311 is not attracted; where misconduct is the foundation, so that an inquiry is held to establish it or the order casts a stigma, Article 311(2) applies and a termination without the constitutional procedure is void.

The practical effect of confirmation is therefore indirect but decisive. It supplies the right to the post that satisfies the first Dhingra test.

What changes on confirmation

The route by which service can be ended changes, and that is the substance of the matter.

A confirmed employee holds the post substantively. Service can be ended only by a penalty of removal or dismissal imposed under the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 after an inquiry and the Article 311(2) procedure, by premature retirement, or on superannuation. A discharge from service for unsuitability is no longer available, and neither is reduction in rank outside the penalty rules.

An employee who is not confirmed is in a different position. Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 provides that the services of a temporary government servant are liable to termination at any time by one month’s notice in writing given by either side, with pay and allowances for the notice period, or for the shortfall, where the service is ended forthwith. Notice is served in person, failing which by registered post acknowledgement due, failing which by publication in the Official Gazette, and the month runs from service or tender of the notice. A government decision under Rule 5 records that where the appointment letter itself provides for termination without notice during or at the end of probation, the termination is effected under the appointment letter rather than under Rule 5(1).

Lien follows confirmation, on the definition the 1988 Office Memorandum supplied. Where the number of persons holding a lien exceeds the number of posts, the junior-most is liable to reversion.

The CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 today

The Rules remain in force, having taken effect on 1 May 1965, and they apply to persons holding a civil post without a lien on any permanent post. Railway servants, part-time staff, contract staff, persons paid from contingencies and extra-temporary establishments are outside them.

The 1988 delinking hollowed out a substantial part of the Rules. Rule 3, which fixed when a servant was deemed to be in quasi-permanent service, and Rule 4, which required the declaration to specify the post, both now read “Deleted”. So do Rule 7, on termination of quasi-permanent service, Rule 8, Rule 9, on leave and allowances in quasi-permanent service, and sub-rules 10(4) and 10(5). Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 2 are shown as omitted.

What survives is the machinery for temporary service proper: Rule 5 on termination by notice, Rule 6 on termination for physical unfitness without notice, and Rule 10 on terminal gratuity, whose sub-rule (7) restricts the benefit to those appointed on or before 31 December 2003. The population these Rules govern is therefore everyone holding a civil post who has not been confirmed and holds no lien, which since 1988 means the road runs directly from temporary service to confirmation with no intermediate status in between.

What confirmation does not decide

Delinking left confirmation with a narrower role than departmental practice assumes.

Pension is the one place where the condition is stated in terms of confirmation. Rule 16 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, notified by G.S.R. 868(E) dated 20 December 2021, provides that service on probation against a post, if followed by confirmation in the same or another post, shall qualify. The condition is confirmation, not confirmation in the post on which the probation was served, so a probationer later confirmed elsewhere still has the period counted towards qualifying service. For those who entered service on or after 1 January 2004 the defined benefit pension does not apply and the National Pension System governs, so Rule 16 matters chiefly for pre-2004 entrants.

Posts where no probation is prescribed

An officer appointed or promoted on a regular basis to a post whose recruitment rules prescribe no probation gets every benefit a confirmed person in that grade would have, without any confirmation order and without waiting for one. Note (B)(ii) following the paragraph 10 table of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 says so in terms, and records that the position follows from the same 1988 decision that delinked confirmation from the availability of permanent posts.

Two conditions carry the weight. The appointment or promotion must be on a regular basis, which means the prescribed Departmental Promotion Committee procedure was followed, so an ad hoc appointment does not attract the note. And the recruitment rules must prescribe no probation at all, rather than prescribing a probation the officer has not yet served.

The lien definition in the Office Memorandum of 28 March 1988 tracks this exactly, which is why the two are best read together. A lien is enjoyed by a person who has been confirmed, by a person promoted and declared to have completed probation, and by a person promoted on a regular basis to a post where no probation is prescribed. The third limb of that definition exists to cover the population this note describes.

Paragraph 10 of the Master Circular also fixes where probation is prescribed in the first place. There is no probation on promotion from one grade to another within the same group of posts; probation for the prescribed period applies where the promotion involves a change in the Group, as from Group B to Group A; the standard period on direct recruitment is two years, as it is for officers re-employed before the age of superannuation; and appointment on contract or on a tenure basis carries no probation.

Fresh entry and appointment by transfer

Because confirmation happens once in the entry grade, a promotion within the same service or cadre raises no confirmation question at all. A department that issues a fresh confirmation order on each promotion is applying a scheme abolished in 1988.

What issues on promotion instead is a different order, and paragraph 26 of the Master Circular dated 11 March 2019 names it. Where probation on promotion is prescribed, the appointing authority assesses the work and conduct of the officer on completion of the prescribed period and, if satisfied that the officer is fit to hold the higher grade, passes an order declaring that the person concerned has successfully completed the probation. That is a declaration of successful completion, not a confirmation, and the distinction is not cosmetic: the officer was already confirmed once, in the entry grade, and holds the substantive title from that order. The same paragraph gives the appointing authority the alternatives of reverting the officer to the post from which the promotion was made or extending the probation, and tells departments there should be no hesitation to revert where the work during probation has not been satisfactory.

A fresh confirmation arises only on fresh entry into another post, service or cadre, whether by direct recruitment or otherwise. Note (A) following the paragraph 10 table puts the reason on the record: confirmation in the new entry grade becomes necessary because the new post may not be in the same line or discipline as the old one, so suitability for continuance in the old post does not automatically make the officer suitable for the new one. An officer who resigns one central post to take another on a technical resignation therefore serves the new post’s probation and is confirmed there in the ordinary way; continuity of past service for pay, leave and pension does not shortcut it.

Paragraph 28 deals with appointment by transfer, and it has two limbs that are routinely quoted as one. Where the government servant appointed by transfer has already been confirmed in the earlier post, no further confirmation in the new post is necessary and the officer may be treated as permanent in the new post. Where the government servant was not already confirmed in the old post, it is necessary to confirm the officer in the new one, and the case may be considered after watching the officer for two years, during which two appraisal reports in the new grade become available for the committee to read. The instruction descends from Office Memorandum No. 18011/3/88-Estt.(D) dated 24 September 1992 on the confirmation of persons appointed on transfer basis, which the Master Circular lists at serial 8 of its Appendix.

Confirmation in the All India Services

The All India Services take a different route, and the difference is structural rather than procedural.

Rule 3-A of the Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, headed “Confirmation”, provides that where a probationer has completed the period of probation to the satisfaction of the Central Government, the probationer shall, subject to the other provisions of the rules, be confirmed in the Service at the end of the period of probation. Rule 3-A was added by Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. 2/1/61-AIS dated 5 June 1961; the principal rules were published by G.S.R. No. 152(E) dated 8 September 1954 under section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951.

Rule 3, as substituted by Notification No. 11037/3/86-AIS(III) dated 25 August 1986, fixes two years of probation for direct recruits and one year for promotees and select-list appointees, with extension by one year under sub-rule (3) and up to two years under sub-rule (3A) where the requisite training has not been undergone, or for such period as the Central Government thinks fit where the probationer is under suspension or facing disciplinary or criminal proceedings. Rule 12 sets out the grounds of discharge.

The contrast with the central civil services is sharp. In the Indian Administrative Service confirmation is a rule-level entitlement expressed in mandatory terms, flowing from satisfactory completion of probation. In the central civil services it is an administrative act resting on executive instruction, requiring a specific order after committee consideration and vigilance clearance. That difference is why the deemed-confirmation case law bites differently in the two systems, and it is developed further in the article on probation in the All India Services.

Recording the confirmation

Supplementary Rule 199 requires that every step in a government servant’s official life be recorded in the service book and that each entry be attested by the head of the office, with the immediate superior attesting where the servant is himself the head of the office. Confirmation is such a step.

The operative modern instruction is Office Memorandum No. 18019/7/2013-Estt.(L) dated 23 October 2013, issued after the Department of Personnel and Training found that Supplementary Rules 199 and 202 were not being followed, which directs that verification of service be maintained in Part V of the revised service book format circulated by Office Memorandum No. 17011/11/99-Estt.(L) dated 11 March 2008.

When no order was ever issued

This is the practical question most employees arrive with, and the answer has two halves.

The administrative half is paragraph 27. Where no order confirming, discharging or reverting has issued within eight weeks after double the normal probation period, probationary status ends by deeming. The employee cannot afterwards be discharged as a probationer, which removes the sharpest risk, and the summary routes out of service close.

The judicial half is narrower than the folklore suggests. Because central civil posts sit in the third Satya Narayan Jhavar class, a tribunal will not declare an employee confirmed merely because time has passed. The relief realistically available is a direction to the appointing authority to take a decision. The forum is the Central Administrative Tribunal under sections 14 and 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Act No. 13 of 1985, subject to section 20, which bars admission of an application until the available departmental remedies have been exhausted, and to the limitation in section 21.

Common errors in establishment practice

Treating the end of probation as confirmation. Paragraph 24 requires a specific order. Nothing in paragraph 27 supplies one.

Confirming an officer at every promotion. Since 1 April 1988 confirmation is once, in the entry grade.

Holding up confirmation for want of a permanent post. The requirement went in 1988. So did the belief that seniority runs from confirmation.

Convening a Departmental Promotion Committee and calling its output a confirmation. The confirmation case goes to a Departmental Confirmation Committee, which grades the officer Fit or Not yet fit rather than ranking a field.

Issuing the order without vigilance clearance. Paragraph 17.1 of the Office Memorandum dated 10 April 1989 requires the clearance before the order, and paragraph 24 requires the case to be cleared from all angles. Since 9 October 2024 confirmation is itself one of the ten purposes for which vigilance clearance is needed, so a missing annual immovable property return is now enough on its own to stall the order under paragraph 8(k) of Office Memorandum No. 104/33/2024-AVD-IA.

Dating the confirmation from the date of the order. Paragraph 27 dates it from the day following satisfactory completion of probation or of the extended period.

Telling an unconfirmed employee that Article 311 does not apply. Dhingra holds that it applies to permanent and temporary servants alike. What the unconfirmed employee lacks is a right to the post, not the constitutional safeguard.

Citing Dayaram Dayal for deemed confirmation. It was overruled in Satya Narayan Jhavar.

Treating quasi-permanent status as available. Rules 3 and 4 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read “Deleted”.

Terminating a confirmed employee under Rule 5. That rule reaches a temporary government servant without a lien on a permanent post, which a confirmed employee is not.

Calling the paragraph 26 order a confirmation. What issues on satisfactory completion of probation on promotion is an order declaring that the officer has successfully completed the probation. The confirmation order was issued once, in the entry grade.

Waiting for a confirmation order in a post that carries no probation. Where the recruitment rules prescribe no probation, note (B)(ii) to paragraph 10 gives a regular appointee every benefit a confirmed person in that grade would have, and no order is due.

Reading only the second limb of paragraph 28. An officer appointed by transfer who was already confirmed in the earlier post needs no further confirmation and may be treated as permanent in the new post. The two-year watch applies only to an officer who was not confirmed in the old post.

Related Articles

• Probation in central government service
• Deemed confirmation
• Substantive appointment
• Lien
• Seniority
• Permanent post
• Temporary post
• Quasi-permanent service
• CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965
• Appointing authority
• Ad hoc appointment
• Recruitment Rules
• Direct recruitment
• Probation reports
• Annual Performance Appraisal Report
• Departmental Promotion Committee
• Vigilance clearance
• Sealed cover procedure
• Article 311
• Article 309
• Doctrine of pleasure
• CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Departmental inquiry
• Suspension
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Discharge from service
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Reduction in rank
• Premature retirement
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Technical resignation
• Promotion
• Probation in the All India Services
• Qualifying service
• CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021
• Department of Personnel and Training
• Central government employees in India

External references

• Department of Personnel and Training, Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services, Office Memorandum No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C) dated 11 March 2019: https://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02est/Master%20Circular%20Probation%20MGEUu.PDF
• Department of Personnel and Training, CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965: https://dopt.gov.in/temporary-service-rules-0
• Department of Personnel and Training, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and connected instructions: https://dopt.gov.in/ccs-cca-rules-1965-0
• Department of Personnel and Training circulars archive, Establishment (D) series: https://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02est/22011_5_86-Estt-D-200689.pdf
• Union Public Service Commission, instructions and guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees: https://upsc.gov.in/promotions-deputations/appointment-promotion/important-instructionsguidelines-dpcs-promotions
• Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021: https://pensionersportal.gov.in/PensionRules3.aspx
• India Code, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1832/1/AA1985__13admin.pdf

References

1. Department of Personnel and Training, Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services, Office Memorandum No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C), dated 11 March 2019, paragraphs 4, 8, 10, 15 to 21 and 24 to 28, with notes (A) and (B) following the paragraph 10 table, and the Appendix of 15 consolidated orders.
2. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 18011/1/86-Estt.(D), dated 28 March 1988, delinking of confirmation from the availability of a permanent post, effective 1 April 1988.
3. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D), dated 10 April 1989, consolidated instructions on Departmental Promotion Committees, paragraphs 8 and 17.1.
4. Department of Personnel and Training, Guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees, Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1721625311004 dated 22 July 2024, paragraphs 1.1, 1.2.1 and 12.3, the parent instrument being Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10 April 1989.
5. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A), dated 14 September 1992, sealed cover procedure.
6. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 104/33/2024-AVD-IA, dated 9 October 2024, revised guidelines on grant of vigilance clearance.
7. CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, effective 1 May 1965, Rules 1, 2, 5, 6 and 10, with Rules 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 deleted.
8. CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, notified by G.S.R. 868(E), dated 20 December 2021, Rule 16.
9. Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, Constitution Bench, 1 November 1957.
10. Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, seven-Judge Bench, 23 August 1974.
11. High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, paragraph 11, overruling Dayaram Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 443.
12. Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, G.S.R. No. 152(E) dated 8 September 1954, Rule 3-A inserted by Notification No. 2/1/61-AIS dated 5 June 1961.
13. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act No. 13 of 1985), sections 14, 19, 20 and 21.