1 2026:CGHC:10600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3854 of 2023 Nagesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Sahnu Ram Chauhan Aged About 31 Years Presently Posted As Field Man At Khadgaon Range Under Panabaras Project Division Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (Now Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki) Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Block 7, Sector 24, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Manager Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Panabaras Project Division Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (Now Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki) Chhattisgarh 4 - District Forest Officer Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh 5 - Lalit Kumar Ratre Assistant Project Ranger Bar Nawapara Project Division Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Kamta Prasad Sonwani Assistant Project Ranger, Bar Nawapara Project Division Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Zainab Vanak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.02 17:17:20 +0530 2 For Respondents No.1 & 4 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 28.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned promotion order Dated 28.12.2022 (vis-à-vis private respondents) issued by the respondent Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd (P/1). 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Project Ranger from the post of Field Man wef 28.12.2022. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire controversy in the present case revolves around the non- communication of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has been deprived of his rightful promotion to the post of Assistant Project Ranger pursuant to order dated 28.12.2022 solely on account of entries in 3 the ACRs, which were never communicated to him. It is argued that in the absence of communication of the ACR entries, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to make a representation against any adverse or below-benchmark grading. Consequently, the action of the respondents in superseding the petitioner is stated to be in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566 wherein it has been categorically held that every entry in the ACR, even if it is “Good”, must be communicated to the concerned employee as it has a direct bearing on promotional prospects. 3. Learned counsel submits that since the ACRs relied upon for consideration of promotion were admittedly not acknowledged by the petitioner and there is no material to show proper communication, the petitioner could not have been legally denied promotion on the basis thereof. Therefore, the impugned promotion order dated 28.12.2022, insofar as it excludes the petitioner, is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that at the outset it is an admitted position that the petitioner is an employee of Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, which is an autonomous body having an independent legal entity distinct from the State Government. It is contended that the 4 substantive reliefs in the present petition have been claimed only against respondent No. 2–Corporation and its authorities, and no specific relief has been sought against respondent Nos. 1 and 4 i.e. the State of Chhattisgarh. He therefore submits that the State of Chhattisgarh has been arrayed merely as a formal party and, in absence of any direct allegation or relief claimed against it, the State is not required to file a reply on merits. It is further submitted that the service conditions, promotional avenues and consideration of ACRs of the petitioner fall exclusively within the administrative domain of the Corporation, and any grievance in that regard has to be addressed by the concerned respondent– Corporation in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the impugned promotion order dated 28.12.2022 is a matter of record. It is contended that the petitioner, though senior in the gradation list, was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Padonnati Niyam, 2003 and the applicable service rules of Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Limited. The criteria adopted was “seniority-cum-suitability” and a benchmark of 12 marks was fixed on the basis of evaluation of the last five years’ ACRs. It is submitted that since one ACR of the petitioner was incomplete, the DPC, in terms of Rule 6.6, considered the previous year’s ACR. Upon assessment, the petitioner secured only 11 marks, which was below the prescribed benchmark, and 5 therefore he was found unsuitable for promotion. So far as communication of ACRs is concerned, the respondents state that the ACRs were communicated to the petitioner through the competent authority and letters in that regard have been placed on record. However, it is fairly conceded that no separate acknowledgment bearing the signature of the petitioner has been filed on record. Nonetheless, it is argued that the promotion process was conducted strictly as per rules and the petitioner was not recommended solely for want of requisite benchmark marks. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. Considering the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the material available on record and the affidavit filed by the competent authority, this Court finds that though the respondents have asserted communication of the ACRs, no documentary proof of acknowledgment by the petitioner has been brought on record. The law with regard to communication of ACR entries is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India and others, (2018) 18 SCC 640 and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur through Its Registrar General and others, (2023) 19 SCC 472, has categorically held that non-communication of entries having a bearing on promotional prospects is violative of the principles of natural justice. It has been consistently held that an employee 6 cannot be denied promotion on the basis of entries in the ACR which were never communicated to him, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to make a representation. In absence of duly communicated adverse or below-benchmark entries, the claim of the petitioner for promotion cannot be defeated merely on the ground of assessment founded upon such uncommunicated ACRs. 8. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Project Ranger strictly in accordance with the applicable rules. While undertaking such reconsideration, any ACR entry which has not been duly communicated to the petitioner and acknowledged in accordance with law shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing his suitability. If upon such reconsideration the petitioner is found entitled, consequential benefits shall also follow in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the competent authority. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh