1 2025:CGHC:52767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1259 of 2023 1 - Ku. Chanda Lautre D/o Late Shri Atmaram Lautre Aged About 47 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Peon, Chhattisgarh State As Peon, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Committee Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Agruculture Marketing Board Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director State Agriculture Marketing Board, Divisional Office, Division Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Durg, Sikola Basti, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 27/01/2023 passed by the respondent no.4. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion. Iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. iv. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner, through the present writ petition, seeks to challenge the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by respondent No. 4, whereby his representation for reconsideration and rectification of his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) has been rejected without assigning any cogent or plausible reasons. The petitioner is employed as a Peon in the office of respondent No. 4, namely the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Durg (Sikola Basti), having been appointed on 01.10.2016. Since his appointment, the petitioner has diligently and conscientiously discharged his duties. Upon completion of 3 five years of service, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III, for which the essential criteria are seniority- cum-fitness and satisfactory ACRs for the preceding five years. In this context, the petitioner submitted an application seeking copies of his ACRs, and upon perusal, he discovered that his ACR for the year 2021–22 had been graded as “C” (average). Aggrieved by the said grading, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation requesting rectification, contending that he had worked sincerely and efficiently throughout the assessment year and that the said grading did not reflect his actual performance. However, respondent No. 4, without providing any substantive reasoning or considering the petitioner’s submissions, rejected his representation by order dated 27.01.2023, merely observing that, based on the opinion of the concerned authorities, the grading of “C” could not be altered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has committed any act or omission warranting the grant of (C) grade in the gradation list. It is contended that the petitioner has throughout discharged his duties with utmost sincerity, diligence, and dedication, maintaining an unblemished service record. Despite his consistent performance and completion of more than five years of satisfactory service, thereby fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for promotion, his prospects have been unjustly marred due to the adverse grading in his ACR for the year 2021–22. Learned 4 counsel further submits that such grading has been awarded arbitrarily and without assigning any plausible reason, which has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner’s promotional opportunities. Hence, it is humbly prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner’s ACR be suitably rectified in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the work of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory as such he has been given ( C ) grade in the ACR as per recommendation made by the concerned authorities. It is submitted that for the year 2017-18 the ACR has been marked by the then Secretary as Good/B (उ्䵈म ख) in the category of Conduct, obedience, regularity, behaviour, NER intelligence and ability to perform assigned tasks, etc. and accordingly the ACR for the year 2017-18's final grading is Good/B (उ्䵈म ख) which is proper Similarly, for the year 2018-19, the ACR of Petitioner has been marked by the then Secretary as Good/B (उ्䵈म ख) in the category of Conduct, obedience, regularity, behaviour, intelligence and ability to perform assigned tasks, special and general comments and accordingly the ACR for year 2018-19's final grading is Good/B (उ्䵈म ख). For the year. 2019-20 the ACR of Petitioner has been graded as Good/B (उ्䵈म ) and Achcha under the category of 5 Conduct, obedience, regularity, behaviour, intelligence and ability to perform assigned tasks, special and general comments and accordingly, the ACR for year 2019-20's final grading. For the year 2020-21, the ACR of Petitioner has been marked by the then Secretary as Good/B (उ्䵈म ख) in the category of Conduct, obedience, regularity. behaviour, intelligence and ability to perform assigned tasks, special and general comments and accordingly the ACR for year 2020-21's final grading is Good/B (उ्䵈म ख). Lastly, for the year 2021-22, the the ACR of Petitioner has been marked by the then Secretary as Achcha and Ausat in the respective category of Conduct, obedience, regularity, behaviour, intelligence and ability to perform assigned tasks, special and general comments and accordingly the ACR for year 2021-22 is Ausat(Average) i.e. Average/C (स㠾मन⡍य ग). It is also submitted that the grading marked by the assessing officer/ the then Secretary Mandi Samiti Durg is just, proper, reasonable and duly substantiated by his reasoning in the ACR itself and any allegation by Petitioner w.r.t her gradings marked by the then Secretary Mandi Samiti Durg is unsubstantiated and without any iota of merit. That, it is submitted that for promotion from the post of Peon/Chowkidar to Assistant Grade 3 at Mandi Samiti Durg, the DPC was convened on 16/03/2023 which had resolved that the selection would be made in consonance with the provisions of the 6 Mandi Samiti as well as the orders and circulars of the GAD of State government. Also, the promotion would be made on the basis of Seniority cum Suitability (Varishthata sah upyuktata) Further, the DPC had resolved following criteria for selection which is translated and reproduced as follows- i Integrity must be beyond any doubt and proven. ii The overall evaluation of the confidential reports of five years must be in the Good/B (उ्䵈म ख) category. iii. The confidential report for the last and latest year must not be in the Average/C (स㠾मन⡍य ग) category. iv. If ACR of any year is marked in the category of Average/C (स㠾मन⡍य ग), the same can be supplanted by ACR grading of Outstanding/A+ (उत⑍कᕃ ्䵖 कᕃ+), Very Good/A (अत␿-उ्䵈म कᕃ) in the preceding years. As such the petitioner has rightly given (C ) grade which is not required to be interefered with. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondents have failed to demonstrate or substantiate the circumstances under which the petitioner was assigned a “C” grade in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR). It is pertinent to note that in the 7 previous years, i.e., 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the petitioner’s ACRs were consistently graded as “Good.” However, there is nothing on record to indicate any specific reason or adverse material justifying the sudden downgrading to “C” grade in the subsequent year. Furthermore, the ACR for the year 2021- 22 was never communicated to the petitioner, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to know or make any representation regarding his grading. It was only when the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III and applied for copies of his ACRs for the preceding five years that he came to know about the said adverse grading for the year 2021-22, which had till then remained undisclosed to him. 7. The law is well settled that any adverse entry made in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of an employee must be communicated to him forthwith, as non-communication of such adverse remarks within a reasonable time and without any plausible justification renders the ACR itself doubtful and unreliable. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rukhsana Shaheen Khan vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 640, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “In view of the decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566, there cannot be any dispute on this aspect. This Court has settled the law that uncommunicated and adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon in the process.” 8 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur reported in (2023) 19 SCC 472, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “18. In the present case the petitioner got "Good" gradings for the year 2016-2017 and received "Very Good" gradings in her ACRs for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner which has not been denied that the ACRS grading of "Good" for the year 2016-2017 was never communicated to the petitioner even till the DPC met. Therefore, as per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions more particularly, as observed and held by this Court in Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Sukhdev Singh and Dev Dutt v. Union of India uncommunicated adverse ACRs may be even with "Good" entry which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion. Therefore, uncommunicated ACR for the year 2016-2017 having the grading "Good" could not have been relied upon for consideration for promotion.” 10. In the present case, the adverse grading of “C” awarded to the petitioner in his ACR for the year 2021-22 was neither timely communicated nor supported by any cogent reason. When the petitioner submitted a representation seeking rectification of his gradation list, the concerned authorities disposed of the same in a 9 most casual and non-speaking manner, which further reflects the absence of any legitimate basis for awarding the said adverse grade. It also appears that the petitioner was within the zone of consideration for promotion, yet solely on the strength of this arbitrary and unexplained “C” grading in his 2021-22 ACR, his promotion was unjustly denied, thereby causing serious prejudice to his service prospects. 11. This Court is constrained to observe with concern whether the action of the respondent authorities has been taken with the sole intention of depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right to promotion. Once the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration for promotion, it becomes the bounden duty of the competent authorities to objectively evaluate his case in accordance with the prescribed promotion rules. Such evaluation must be based on a fair and comprehensive assessment of the petitioner’s entire service record, including the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of all relevant years, so as to ensure that no arbitrariness or bias taints the process of promotion. 12. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has been arbitrarily awarded a “C” grade in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) without any plausible or justifiable reason. Such an action on the part of the respondent authorities reflects a lack of fairness and transparency in the assessment process. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, being vague and unsustainable in law, deserves to be quashed. The 10 respondent authorities are accordingly directed to re-examine and reconsider the petitioner’s case for rectification of his ACR pertaining to the year 2021–22, and thereafter to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Furthermore, since the petitioner’s ACRs for the preceding years have consistently been rated as “Good,” the authorities are expected to duly consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat