1 2025:CGHC:45135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6347 of 2021  Sandeep Biswas S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Biswas Aged About 41 Years R/o 27 Kholi Vikas Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, Disrict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Riapur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Antyavasyi Sahkari Vitta Avam Vikas Nigam, Through The Managing Director Tri Building 2nd Floor, Sector- 24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Secretary Chhattisgarh State Antyavasyi Sahkari Vitta Avam Vikas Nigam, Tri Building 2nd Floor, Sector- 24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Adarsh Sao, Manager/executive Officer, Presentlyposted At Assistant General Manager, Nigam Mukhyalaya, Nava Raiopur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Laxmi Prasad Kashyap Manager/executive Office, Presently Posted At Office Of Zila Antyavyasi Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Babubhai Shrivas Manager/executive Officer, Presentluy Posted At Ofice Of Zila Antyavyasi Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 7. Manharan Kosle Manager/ Executive Officer, Presently Posted At Office Of Executive Officer, Zila Samiti Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 8. Smt. Sita Shrivas Manager/executive Officer, Presently Posted At Office Of Executive Officer, Zila Samiti Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.04 16:20:15 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03. 09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.10.18 (ANNEXURE P/1) & 06.10.2021 (ANNEXURE P/2), issued by respondent No. 2 to the extent of granting promotion to the of petitioner & non inclusion of name of petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner in the post of Executive Officer from the date of promotion of his juniors i.e. 05.10.2018 (ANNEXURE P/1) with all consequential benefits and seniority along with payment for the post of Executive Officer. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned DPC proceedings dated 29.09.2018 (ANNEXURE P/4) to the extent of declaring petitioner ineligible and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 15.03.2021 (ANNEXURE P/3) issued by respondent no. 3. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct fresh review DPC considering the case of petitioner for promotion in the post of Executive Officer treating his ACR for year 2017-18 as Good/Kha', in the interest of justice. 10.6 That, any other relief which this Court finds just and proper may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding post of Chief Instructor/Field Officer under the respondents No. 2 & 3. He would further submit that Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened for promotion from post of 3 Chief Instructor to Executive Officer on 29.09.2018, but name of the petitioner was not found suitable as he was awarded grade “C” in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of year 2017-18. He would also submit that the petitioner made a representation before the higher authorities and his ACR was upgraded vide order dated 06.06.2019. He would contend that the review DPC was convened on 10.02.2021 and name of the petitioner was again not considered despite representation on the ground that name of the petitioner was considered in the DPC of 29.09.2018 and he was not found suitable. He would further contend that juniors to the petitioner has already been promoted, therefore, a direction may be issued to respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate would submit that the petitioner was awarded grade “C” in the ACR of 2017-18. He would further submit that though reviewing authority awarded grade “B” to the petitioner, but reasons were not assigned while upgrading ACR. He would also submit that as the ACR of the petitioner was wrongly upgraded by the reviewing authority; therefore, the name of the petitioner was not considered in the review DPC. 4. Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Dubey appearing for respective respondents would support the contention made by Mr. Pali. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the matter of Shri Yogendra Babu Sharma vs. Union of India and others passed in WPS No. 1646 of 2019, the Division Bench has held that right to make representation against adverse entry in the ACR is a valuable 4 right of the public servant and once it is considered by the competent authority and ACR is upgraded by the competent authority the Review DPC or the Selection Committee cannot refuse to consider it on the ground that the earlier ACR prior to up-gradation has become final, para 38 is reproduced herein-below :- “38. As such, the finding recorded by the Review DPC holding that ACR of the petitioner for the year 2005-06 prior to up-gradation has to be treated as final, is in teeth of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra), Brij Mohan Singh Chopra (supra), Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev Singh (supra), as the right to make representation against adverse entry in the ACR is a valuable right of the public servant and once it (representation) is considered by the competent authority that too favourably and ACR is upgraded by the competent authority as “Very Good”, the Review DPC or the Selection Committee cannot refuse to consider it on the ground that the earlier ACR prior to up-gradation has become final, as it is in teeth of the well settled law in this regard and it would be arbitrary and contrary to the well settled law in this regard. Accordingly, it is held so.” 7. In the present case, though ACR of the petitioner of year 2017-18 was upgraded by the reviewing authority, but the same was not taken into consideration in the review DPC held on 10.02.2021. The respondents No. 2 & 3 were under obligation to consider the upgrade ACR of the petitioner in Review DPC held on 10.02.2021, accordingly, adverse orders passed against the petitioner are hereby quashed. The respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to consider the name of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Executive Officer by convening review DPC, strictly in accordance with the law. 8. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of two months. 5 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant