1 2025:CGHC:22973-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 321 of 2025 Abdul Kabir Qureshi S/o Hazi Abdul Labbar Khan Aged About 67 Years Retired As Accountant, R/o Takiya Para, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislation, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Office At High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Wrongly Written As Regional General) 3 - The Selection And Promotion Committee Through Its Chairman, District Durg, Durg, District Durg (C.G.,) 4 - District And Session Judge Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Bodhan Lal Swarnkar Retired Accountant, District And Session Judge Office, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate. For Respondent No.2 to 4 : Mr.Shashwat Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.12 11:02:14 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State as well as Mr.Shashwat Mishra, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 to 4 on IA No. 01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 08 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 8378 of 2018 (Abdul Kabir Qureshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 5. Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. The appellant was appointed to the post of AG-II under respondent No. 4 on 29.01.1979, whereas respondent No. 5 was 3 appointed on the same post vide order dated 18.05.1984. B. Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant vide order dated 14.09.2005, but the name of the appellant was not considered. C. The writ petitioner/appellant made a representation on 23.09.2005 and when no heed was paid, he preferred WP No. 2012/2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2006, whereby respondent No.4 was directed to decide the representation. However, the representation made by the writ petitioner/appellant was rejected by respondent No.4 vide order dated 07.10.2005, prior to the disposal of the writ petition. D. The gradation list was issued on 23.09.2006, and the writ petitioner/appellant again made a representation before respondent No.4 on 18.10.2006, which was rejected on 20.11.2006. E. In the order dated 20.11.2006, respondent No.4 stated that the name of the writ petitioner/appellant was within the zone of consideration, but respondent No.5 was found suitable. F. The writ petitioner/appellant filed an appeal before the higher authority, i.e., respondent No. 2 on 20.02.2007. G. A response was sought from respondent No.4, who stated that there were adverse entries in the ACR of the writ petitioner/appellant for the years 2002-2005. The appellant 4 submitted a representation, stating that those adverse entries were never communicated to him. H. When no decision was taken on his appeal, the writ petitioner/appellant filed WPS No. 5565/2018. Writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.08.2018, with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal. Respondent No.2, vide order dated 01.10.2018 dismissed the appeal, holding that there were adverse entries in the ACR for the years 2002- 2005. I. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition has been dismissed for delay and latches, is illegal and therefore it is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that learned Single Judge applied the principles laid down in the matter of "Bichitrananda Behera Versus State of Orisha and others" reported in 2003 Livelaw (SC) 883" and thereby the dismissed the writ petition holding delay, whereas the principles laid down in the above judgment would not be applicable in the case of appellant as the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 and the same was challenged immediately in the writ petition on 03.12.2018. He further submits that his claim for promotion was denied on the count that the ACR 5 of the appellant of year 2002 & 2005 carries adverse remarks and those ACR was never communicated to the appellant, which was admitted by the respondent No.4 in its reply which is already filed in the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and thus the adverse remark in the ACR cannot be considered once not communicated, hence the appellant had good case on merits, which ought not to have denied on technical ground of delay and latches. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Indar Singh Versus State of MP, reported in (2025) Livelaw (SC) 339" has held that at a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delay when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice. Learned Single Judge ought to have decided the case of the appellant on merits instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay and latches. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant on 14.09.2005 who was junior to the writ petitioner/appellant as the appellant was appointed initially on 29.01.1979 and the respondent No.5 was appointed initially on 18.05.1984, hence superseding the appellant only because there was un-communicated adverse entry in ACR, is illegal. Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the representation was made to the respondent No.2 on 20.02.2007 in which reply was filed by the respondent No.4 on 11.04.2008 and since thereafter, the matter was pending before the respondent 6 No.2, then thereafter, writ petition was preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant as WPS No.5565/2018, which was disposed on 28.08.2018 directing the respondent No.2 to take decision over the appeal. The said representation/appeal was decided by the authorities after delay of 10 years on 01.10.2018 and thereafter the same was challenged in the writ petition on 03.12.2018 and the same has been dismissed by learned Single Judge holding that there is delay of 12 years, whereas the delay was committed by the respondents. Learned Single Judge without the reply of respondent No.2 to 4 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches. He has appreciated that there is continues and recurring effect on the writ petitioner/appellant on his non consideration of promotion. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that the writ petitioner/appellant filed this petition on 03.12.2018, after his retirement. Respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant on 14.09.2005. WP No. 2012/2006, filed by the writ petitioner/appellant, was disposed of on 26.04.2006, but prior to its disposal, his representation was rejected vide order dated 07.10.2005 by respondent No.4. The writ petitioner/appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated 20.11.2006 before respondent No.2, but he has not pleaded specific provisions under which the appeal was preferred against the rejection of his representation. The appeal remained pending for a considerable period, and the writ petitioner/appellant filed a writ petition in 2018 i.e. WPS No. 5565/2018 after 12 years. The appeal was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2018 on the ground that there were adverse entries in the ACR for the years 2002-2005. Learned Single Judge further observed that in the present writ petition, the writ petitioner/appellant failed to demonstrate that the adverse entries in the ACRs were never communicated to him. The writ petitioner/appellant should have approached this Court immediately after the issuance of the promotion order in favor of respondent No.5. Though in the earlier rounds of litigation, directions were issued to decide the representation/appeal, but sight cannot lost that there is an inordinate delay of 12 years in approaching this Court after the 8 rejection of the petitioner's representation and dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 11.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu