Manipur High Court
Md. Abdul Latif vs Food Corporation Of India (Fci) & Anr on 18 April, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item No. 26-27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 674 of 2024 with
MC(WP(C) No. 566 of 2024
Md. Abdul Latif
.....Petitioner/s
-Versus-
Food Corporation of India (FCI) & Anr.
....Respondent/s
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
Order
18.04.2026
[1] Heard Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. BK. Singh, learned counsel for the FCI.
[2] The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III (A/Cs) in
the Food Corporation of India (FCI), vide order dated 24.08.2009 issued
by the Assistant General Manager (Pers.) and vide another order dated
29.10.2013, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-
II (A/Cs). On 22.05.2017, the petitioner was further promoted to the post
of Assistant Grade-I (A/Cs). Later on, vide another order dated
01.07.2022, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager (A/Cs).
[3] In terms of the promotion order dated 01.07.2022, as per
para 5, the probation is for one year and extendable for another period
of one year and as per para 7, the promotee will be reverted forthwith
without given any further notice or without assigning any reason thereof,
if any, subsequent irregularity(s) is/are notice.
[4] From the record, it is seen that the petitioner joined to the
post of Manager (A/Cs) on 12.07.2022 and his one year probation would
be completed on 11.07.2023. Thereafter, vide another order dated
28.06.2024, the probation period of the petitioner was further extended
for another one year w.e.f. 12.07.2023. Vide impugned order dated
04.09.2024, the service of the petitioner was reverted from the post of
Manager (A/Cs) to the substantive post of Assistant Grade-I (A/Cs), as
the service of the petitioner during the extended probation period was
not found satisfactory and the reversion order was issued in terms of
clause 14 of the circular No. EP-01-2023-14 issued by the FCI on
19.05.2023 with regard to probation and confirmation of the employees
of the FCI.
[5] Clause 4 of the circular says that the probation should be one
year for the initial and upon completion of the probation, probation report
should be submitted to the appointment authority within 15 days of the
completion of the probation. Clause 7 of the circular says that the
appointing authority may extend the probation period for another one
year and clause 8 says that while extending the probation period, the
officers/employees should be informed about the shortcomings so that
the employee may improve the shortcomings during the extended period
of probation for another year.
[6] As per clause 13 of the circular, the appointing authority may
revert the employee to the substantive post held by him if he is found to
be not satisfactory after the period of probation or extended period
thereof. Clause 14 says that an employee promoted from lower post to
the higher post shall be liable to be reverted to the lower post without
any notice and without any assigning notice upon finding unsatisfactory
service during probation. Clause 18 of the circular says that the
employee will be deemed to have completed the probation period, if no
confirmation or discharge order or reverting the employee to the lower
post is issued within eight weeks after expiry of double the normal period
of prescribed period of probation
[7] Mr. BK. Singh, learned counsel for the FCI, submits that the
impugned order dated 04.09.2024 was issued within the said period of
eight weeks as contemplated in clause 18 of the circular.
[8] On the other hand, Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel for
the petitioner, submits that the extension order dated 28.06.2024 is
totally in contrary of clause 8 of the circular where at the time of extension
of the probation period, the shortcomings should have been mentioned
and in the present case, the same is not done and it was issued almost
after eleven months of the expiry of the first year probation. In the
circumstances, the petitioner is not aware of any shortcomings and the
impugned order dated 04.09.2024 cannot be sustained on the ground of
non-satisfactory performance during the extended period of probation.
[9] Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel for the petitioner, also
submits that the petitioner is facing departmental proceeding and
criminal proceedings but that is not the ground for reversion to the lower
substantive post. It is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be
set aside only on the ground of non-intimation of reason for non-
satisfactory performance and issuance of extension order at the fag end
of the expiry double extended period.
[10] At this stage, Mr. BK. Singh, learned counsel for the FCI,
submits that he may be given some time to submit his argument on the
legality of the extension order dated 28.06.2024 and also the impugned
order dated 04.09.2024.
[11] List this case on 06.06.2026 as part heard.
JUDGE
Kh. Joshua Maring
RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2026.04.20
SINGH 13:27:12 +05’30’
