1 2025:CGHC:44970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2868 of 2023 1 - Smt. Prema Manjhi W/o Ramnarayan Manjhi, Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Patwari, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Land Records Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A.. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure P/1). 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Revenue Inspector with all consequential benefits. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is presently working as a Patwari and had appeared in the departmental examination for the post of Revenue Inspector, wherein she was placed at Serial No. 157 in the merit list, however, less meritorious candidates were promoted vide order dated 05.10.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 73/2019 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to immediately submit her objection/representation regarding her claim before respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who were directed to scrutinize her claim objectively after verifying the records and to take an appropriate 3 decision in accordance with rules, regulations, and merits of the case within 90 days. In compliance thereof, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 19.02.2019, informed the petitioner that she was not considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector as her ACR for the year 2017 contained an adverse entry, i.e., ‘D’ grade. The petitioner thereafter made a representation seeking upgradation of the said entry, as it had been recorded without any show cause notice or prior intimation to her. The Deputy Collector, vide order dated 31.03.2021, upgraded her ACR for the year 2017 to ‘A’ grade and informed respondent No. 2 accordingly. Despite this, and even after making further representations on 08.06.2021 and 10.02.2022, the petitioner was not considered for promotion. Aggrieved thereby, she again approached this Hon’ble Court, which, vide order dated 10.03.2022, directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to process her claim for promotion from Patwari to Revenue Inspector in light of the improved ACR grading after due verification of records. However, instead of considering her for promotion, respondent No. 2 forwarded the matter to respondent No. 3, contending that the authority who upgraded the ACR was not competent and that only the Collector was competent to evaluate the ACR. Subsequently, the then Collector, without hearing the petitioner, without affording her any opportunity of representation, and 4 without issuing a show cause notice, maintained the ‘D’ grade originally recorded by the Presenting Officer. This was done despite the State Government Circular dated 16.12.2010 mandating that all ACR entries be communicated, which, in the petitioner’s case, was not done for the year 2017. Ignoring these facts, the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 came to be passed, thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 is wholly illegal and without any basis in law. He further submits that the petitioner has been denied promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector purportedly on the grounds of a departmental enquiry. However, the said departmental enquiry had already been concluded prior to the issuance of the impugned order, and no adverse findings were recorded against the petitioner. In fact, the enquiry was formally closed, and the petitioner was found to have no culpability or misconduct. Therefore, the reasons assigned for withholding the petitioner’s promotion are entirely baseless, arbitrary, and per se illegal, warranting appropriate intervention by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that he has no knowledge or information regarding the matter in question. He further contends that, based on the reply filed on behalf of the State, he is not 5 aware of the initiation, conduct or status of the departmental enquiry, and, therefore, cannot offer any substantive comments on the proceedings purportedly carried out in this regard. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and after taking into consideration the submissions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, if the departmental enquiry, which forms the basis of the impugned order, has already been concluded and no adverse findings have been recorded against the petitioner, the concerned respondent authorities are hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector strictly in accordance with law and in a fair and timely manner. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat