ORDER : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i)That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to make additional representation to the respondent authorities for upgradation of his ACR for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 in accordance with law as per material placed by him and if his ACR is upgraded. amendedment list be published and he be selected on the post of Excise Sub Inspector (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent No.2, & 3 to give additional 10 marks to the petitioner for the ACR of the years 2018 and 2019 as during this period he was posted in Gaurella-Pendra which is a scheduled district and thereafter, publish final amended merit list for the post of Excise Sub Inspector and given appointment/posting to the petitioner on the said post (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 27.05.2022, respondent No.2/Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur issued an advertisement for recruitment to a total of 28 posts of Excise Sub Inspector through a departmental competitive examination for the year 2022, out of which 9 posts were earmarked for the unreserved category, and the said examination comprised a total of 200 marks, namely 100 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for assessment of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the preceding five years; the petitioner, having duly fulfilled all the prescribed eligibility criteria, applied for the said post and participated in the entire selection process, whereafter on 20.09.2023 respondent No.3/Chairman, Departmental Competitive Examination–2022 for Excise Sub Inspector/Additional Excise Commissioner, Raipur published a category-wise and marks-wise merit list of all 90 candidates, in which the name of respondent No.6, Roshal Lal Banjare, who was the last selected candidate in the unreserved category, appeared at Serial No.9 having secured 186 marks out of 200, whereas the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.30 having secured 172 marks out of 200; however, despite the fact that the petitioner was neither supplied with his ACRs for the last five years, i.e., from 2017 to 2021, nor afforded any opportunity for upgradation of the same, he made a representation dated 10.02.2023 to respondent No.5/Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Janjgir- Champa seeking supply of his ACRs for the said period, which was not acceded to, and thereafter again submitted a representation dated 08.09.2023 to respondent No.2/Commissioner, Department of Excise, Raipur requesting upgradation of his ACRs for the years 2018 and 2019 from Grade- B to Grade-A in accordance with the Memo of the General Administration Department bearing No. F-4-1/2004/1/3 dated 20.10.2005, but the said representation was neither considered nor acted upon; consequently, after completion of the entire departmental competitive examination, respondent No.2 issued the appointment and posting order dated 29.09.2023 for all 26 selected candidates, wherein the name of respondent No.6, Roshal Lal Banjare, was shown at Serial No.9 as selected under the unreserved category, while the petitioner was unjustly denied selection to the post of Excise Sub Inspector. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been unjustly and arbitrarily deprived of promotion solely on the basis of certain Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) relating to the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, which were never communicated to the petitioner at any point of time, thereby denying him an opportunity to make any representation or seek their upgradation. It is further submitted that, in the absence of such communication, the petitioner was kept completely unaware of any adverse or below-benchmark entries recorded against him, and consequently, the reliance placed upon these uncommunicated ACRs for declining his promotion is contrary to the settled principles of law and fairness. According to learned counsel, uncommunicated ACRs cannot legally be taken into consideration for assessing suitability or refusing promotion, and therefore, the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner from the post of Excise Constable to the post of Excise Sub-Inspector is vitiated, illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Annual Confidential Reports pertaining to the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 were duly communicated to the petitioner on 10.02.2023 pursuant to his own demand for the same, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have approached the competent authority within the prescribed time to seek redressal of his grievance. It is contended that despite having knowledge of the said ACRs, the petitioner failed to take prompt and appropriate steps as required under law, thereby exhibiting clear negligence and laches on his part. In view of such inaction and delay attributable solely to the petitioner, learned counsel argues that the petitioner cannot now be permitted to take advantage of his own default, and consequently, no relief deserves to be granted in his favour. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner, submits that the denial of promotion to the petitioner is fully justified and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the petitioner himself was not vigilant in safeguarding his service interests and failed to take timely steps for obtaining or seeking redressal of the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). It is contended that the petitioner never approached the competent authority by way of any representation or application for communication, review, or expunction of the alleged adverse entries within the prescribed time, and having remained silent and inactive for a considerable period, he cannot now seek to attribute blame to the authorities. Learned counsel further argues that such inaction and lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner disentitles him to any equitable relief, and therefore, the decision to deny promotion cannot be faulted or interfered with at the behest of a person who slept over his rights. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that any adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) must be communicated to the concerned employee within the shortest possible period, as timely communication is an essential requirement of fairness and transparency in service jurisprudence. The department is under a clear and mandatory obligation to convey such adverse findings to the employee, particularly when they are likely to affect his service prospects, including promotion or career advancement. The purpose of such communication is to afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to make a representation, seek rectification, or take corrective measures for improvement, failing which the very object of maintaining ACRs would be defeated. Non-communication of adverse entries not only causes serious prejudice to the employee but also renders reliance on such uncommunicated remarks arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Non-communication of adverse entries not only causes serious prejudice to the employee but also renders reliance on such uncommunicated remarks arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 8. In the present matter, it is an undisputed position that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) pertaining to the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 were not communicated to the petitioner in the ordinary course and were instead supplied only upon his specific demand on 10.02.2023, which action is manifestly contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as consistently reiterated by this Court, mandating that any adverse or relevant entries in the ACRs must be communicated to the concerned employee within a reasonable and prompt period, so as to afford him a fair opportunity to make a representation, seek rectification, or improve his performance, and any belated communication of such ACRs, particularly after they have already been relied upon to the prejudice of the employee, vitiates the process and renders such ACRs legally unsustainable for consideration in matters affecting the service career of the petitioner. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rukhsana Shaheen Khan vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 640 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “1. The sole issue involved in this appeal is whether the the appellant, should have been relied upon for the purpose of consideration of the appellant for promotion. 2. In view of the decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India 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. 3. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment? is set aside with the following directions: (a) The competent authority is directed to ignore the uncommunicated adverse ACRs and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. (b) The appellant shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the process.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General and Others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 472 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “18. (b) The appellant shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the process.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General and Others 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 Indias 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. 22. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on 9-4-2021 is b required to be considered afresh ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-2017 and 2019-20 and her case is required to be considered afresh taking into consideration the ACRs for the years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 for which the petitioner was having "Very Good" gradings.” 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly in view of the fact that the aforesaid adverse ACRs pertaining to the petitioner are directed not to be taken into consideration, it is hereby ordered that the case of the petitioner shall be reconsidered strictly on the basis of the ACRs otherwise available on record in accordance with law, and the competent authority is further directed to pass appropriate and reasoned orders with regard to the promotion of the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.