1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4271 of 2021  Dr. Ram Narendra Netam S/o Late Shri C.S. Netam Aged About 64 Years R/o G-11, Agrasen Nagar, Ring Road No. 01, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Helath And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Health Services Directorate, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Deputy Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 31-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents; ii. To kindly direct the respondents Sfate authorities to place the representations of the petitioner before the State Government for upgrading the entries made in the annual confidential reports for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. iii. To kindly direct the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner for upgrading the entries made in the annual confidential reports for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 with reasoned and 2 speaking order. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Director, Health Services and was posted at Central Laboratory (Malaria), Raipur. He further submits that in the ACRs of the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, the petitioner was awarded “Very Good” by the competent authority but the Reviewing Authority changed the grade from “Very Good” to “Good” and those entries were not communicated to petitioner and on this ground alone, the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director in the year 2016. He contends that the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities on 18.05.2018 but till date, the same has not been decided. He prays for direction to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the present petition is hit by the principle of delay and latches as the petitioner is alleging that he was not communicated the entries made in the ACRs of the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, whereas this petition was filed in the year 2021 without explaining the delay part. He further submits that the representation of the petitioner was decided by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 23.08.2018, and the said order has not been challenged in this petition. He would also submit that the order dated 23.8.2018 was placed on record along with the return, thus the same is 3 within the knowledge of the petitioner. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that the representation made by the petitioner has already been decided by the respondent authority vide order dated 23.08.2018, and the said order has not been challenged in this petition, no case is made out for interference. 6) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail of the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.01 14:05:50 +0530