1 CGHC010193322024 2026:CGHC:35821 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3145 of 2024 Judgment Reserved On : 13.07.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 13.08.2026 Suresh Singh Bhupal S/o Late Shri Shatruhan Singh Bhupal Aged About 56 Years R/o E/4, Nutan Colony, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Presently Working As Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - T.R. Kunjam Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Raipur Circle, Sirpur, Bhavan, Near Kali Mandir, Behind Akashvani, Civil Lines Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3757 of 2023 Suresh Singh Bhupal S/o Late Shri Shatruhan Singh Bhupal Aged About 55 Years R/o E/4, Nutan Colony, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Presently Working As Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief, Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist.-Raipur Chhattisgarh AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.14 17:36:35 +0530 2 3 - T.R. Kunjam, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Raipur Circle, Sirpur Bhavan, Near Kali Mandir, Behind Akashvani, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3640 of 2024 Suresh Singh Bhupal S/o Late Shri Shatruhan Singh Bhupal, Aged About 56 Years R/o E/4, Nutan Colony New Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.). Presently Working As Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Engineer In Chief, Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3 - T.R. Kunjam, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Raipur Circle, Sirpur Bhavan, Near Kali Mandir, Behind Akashvani, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3184 of 2024 N. K. Lal S/o Late Banshi Lal Aged About 58 Years Working As Superintendent Engineer (E And M), P.W.D. At Office Of Chief Engineer, E And M Zone, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through its Principal Secretary, Department of Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Suresh Singh Bhupal S/o Late Shatruhan Singh Bhupal Aged About 56 Years R/o E/4, Nutan Colony, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Presently Working As Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Bilaspur Circle, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) 3 WPS No. 1721 of 2025 N.K. Lal S/o Late Banshi Lal Aged About 59 Years Working As Superintendent Engineer, At Public Works, Department (E/ M), Bilaspur Circle, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through its Principal Secretary, Department of Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Engineer In Chief Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Suresh Singh Bhupal S/o Late Shatruhan Singh Bhupal Aged About 56 Years R/o- E/4, Nutan Colony, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, (C.G.) Presently Working As Superintendent Engineer, E/m Circle, Raipur Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - T. R. Kunjam, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (E/ M), Zone No. 1, Raipur, Sirpur Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2566 of 2025 Suresh Singh Bhupal S/o Late Shri Shatruhan Singh Bhupal Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted And Working As Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Raipur Circle, Raipur Chhattisgarh R/o E/4, Nutan Colony, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - T.R. Kunjam Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M), Raipur Circle, Sirpur Bhavan, Near Kali Mandir, Behind Akashvani, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - N.K. Lal S/o Late Banshi Lal Aged About 59 Years Working As Superintendent Engineer, At Public Works Department (E/m), Bilaspur Cirlce, Dist. - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 4 For respective Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Akash Agrawal, Ms. Richa Patel, Shri Kaif Ali Rizvi, Ms. Samidha Karamelkar and Shri Neeraj Choubey, Shri Avinash K Mishra, Advocates. For State/respondent : Shri Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate General. For respective Respondents : Shri Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate with Shri Hemant Tolani, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The aforesaid Writ Petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order as in all these writ petitions, there is dispute in respect of promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer between Suresh Singh Bhupal, TR Kunjam and NK Lal in respect of seniority and consequential service benefits thereof. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that Suresh Singh Bhupal was appointed on 07.06.1993 as an Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department in the esrtwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Similarly, TR Kunjam was also appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the said Department on 10.07.1992 1992. Shri NK Lal was also appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the said department on 10.07.1992. On 10.01.2018, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened for promotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the one post of Superintending Engineer in which, Suresh Singh Bhupal was found fit to be promoted and as such, the DPC recommended the name of SS Bhupal for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, PWD (E & M) who was promoted to the said post of Superintending Engineer. TR Kunjam and Shri NK Lal was also in zone of consideration for promotion but only one post was available, 5 therefore, Suresh Singh Bhupal was recommended. Thereafter, on 07.10.2022, DPC was convened wherein, T.R. Kunjam was recommended to be promoted from Executive Engineer to Superintendent Engineer. It is noteworthy to mention that T.R. Kunjam had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. W.P.S. No. 3736/2018 before this Court challenging grading in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year, 2012 onwards, which was disposed of on 17.05.2018 by this Court with a direction to the competent authority to consider the pending representation of the T.R. Kunjam. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 17.05.2018, the State Government vide order dated 14.05.2020 has corrected the grading of the (ACR) of TR Kunjam from 26.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 from very good (A) to Excellent (A+) and mentioned that the ACR for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 10.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 to 14.03.2016 do not warrant any change and as such, they are termed as Very Good. Thereafter, T.R. Kunjam again approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing W.P.S. No. 4612/2020 for consideration of para 5 of the order passed on his representation and this Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 directed the competent authority to consider the representation of the T.R. Kunjam with respect to correction of para-5 of order passed on his earlier representation. In compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the State Government passed the order dated 09.11.2021 whereby, the grading in respect of TR Kunjam in para-5 for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 10.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 to 14.03.2016 was changed from Very Good (A) to Excellent (A+). After correction in the gradation of his ACR, T.R. Kunjam 6 has made an application for review DPC of DPC dated 10.01.2018 and same was allowed and review DPC was convened on 10.06.2024 and T.R. Kunjam was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with retrospective effect from 15.01.2018 and Suresh Singh Bhupal has been demoted vide order dated 25.06.2024, which has been challenged by Suresh Singh Bhupal in W.P.S. No. 3640/2024. In WPS No.3145 of 2024, Suresh Singh Bhupal has challenged the proceeding of review DPC dated 07.06.2024 which culminated into order dated 25.06.2024. In WPS No.2566 of 2025, Suresh Singh Bhupal has challenged the order dated 18.10.2024 as vide that order, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer but from 21.12.2020. In WPS No.3757 of 2023, Suresh Singh Bhupal has challenged the order dated 09.11.2021 wherein ACR of TR Kunjam for the periods ranging between 01.04.2014- 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015-10.08.2015 and 12.08.2015-14.03.2016 has been upgraded. N.K. Lal has challenged order dated 20.10.2022 in W.P.S. No. 3184/2024 by which his representation challenging promotion of Suresh Singh Bhupal from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer has been rejected. NK Lal by way of W.P.S. No. 1721/2025 has challenged promotion order dated 18.10.2024 of Suresh Singh Bhupal from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer by virtue of which he was demoted from Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer and has also challenged order dated 26.11.2024 which is promotion order of T.R. Kunjam from the post of Superintending Engineer to Chief Engineer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Suresh Singh Bhupal submits that this court has given a direction to decide a representation and has not given 7 any findings on merits, therefore, the matter has to be decided by overall assessment/comparative merits of the Suresh Singh Bhupal and TR Kunjam, wherein also Suresh Singh Bhupal has been found more meritorious. TR Kunjam has not challenged the DPC dated 10.01.2018 at any point of time and made representation only on the ground of non- communication of ACR and TR Kunjam has accepted his promotion vide DPC dated 07.10.2022 as also order of promotion dated 21.10.2022 and then after accepting the same, he made representation on 20.04.2023 after considerable delay, which is not permissible. The main contention of TR Kunjam as well as respondent State revolves around the upgradation in the ACR of TR Kunjam but they have failed to establish on what reasons/ground or merits his grade has been upgraded, therefore, mere upgradation in ACR will not make him more meritorious than Suresh Singh Bhupal. Also the contention that after upgradation of merits of the TR Kunjam, they have become equal on merits and now as per seniority, TR- Kunjam is liable to be promoted does not satisfy the spirit of promotion through DPC. TR Kunjam and the respondent State counsel raised objection of delay on part of Suresh Singh Bhupal in approaching before this Court also does not hold the ground as the cause of action for Suresh Singh Bhupal arose when the promotion order based on order dated 09.11.2021 has came into effect on 31.05.2023, therefore there is no delay. The locus to challenge the review DPC has been questioned which cannot be entertained as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the person affected by the DPC has substantive locus to challenge the same. TR Kunjam also raised the contention that he has not been communicated 8 with the ACR, therefore he could not challenge the same, but as per his own pleadings also, there is no record to show that even after knowledge of such ACR, he has challenged the same or the ACR of Suresh Singh Bhupal. Mere upgradation/correction in ACR of T.R. Kunjam will not make him more meritorious than the other candidates/Suresh singh Bhupal under the zone of consideration. (Overall factors have to be taken into consideration). There has to be a reason to upgrade the grading and no reason has been mentioned in TR Kunjam's ACR for its upgradation. Gradation cannot be altered without altering the adverse remark. If the law prescribes an order to be in a particular procedure, it has to be done in that procedure. If for any work or order, there is a reason required, then the reason must be given. Principles of natural justice have not been followed. (Procedural irregularities). Subjective satisfaction has to be based on objective consideration. On law points, the rule 7(9) of Promotion Rules 2003, states that the “merit-cum-seniority" has to be the criteria for promotion and that Suresh Singh Bhupal is more meritorious than TR Kunjam as per ACR with reasoning. Learned counsel further submits that so far as why the ACR of T.R.Kunjam for the year 26.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 10.08.2015 and 12:08.2015 to 14.03.2016 could not have been upgraded from 'A' to 'A+', as per the proforma of the ACR, special reasons are required to be recorded, as 'A+' could not have been awarded because Outstanding grade cannot be given until exceptional merit and execution of work was not seen, also the reason/basis should also be recorded for the same. Further, T.R.Kunjam neither in his representation 9 nor in his pleading has assigned any iota, not a single line, that how he is entitled for 'A+' and assignment of 'A' is incorrect. Even the order passed by the authority of upgrading the ACR does not give any reason that on what ground ACR is upgraded, not only this, in the order dated 14.5.2020, the Authority specifically written that there is no ground to-upgrade. In the note sheet of the department, it is stated that the ACR has been upgraded as per the order of this Court whereas, there was no order of this Court for upgradation of ACR, the Court only ordered to decide the representation. The DPC dated 10.01.2018 could not be reviewed at the instance of T.R. Kunjam because the proceeding of the DPC specifically writes that the DPC has made the overall assessment though, T.R.Kunjam has submitted that petitioner/Suresh Singh Bhupal was classified as outstanding because he was graded as outstanding in the ACR. This submission is contrary to the record of the DPC and there is no such pleading by T.R.Kunjam or State that "That the record of DPC is incorrect and petitioner Suresh Singh Bhupal, N.K.Lal and T.R.Kunjam was graded by the DPC only on the basis of the Grading Officer". The criteria for promotion was "MERIT-CUM-SENIORITY" assessed by the DPC which has never been challenged by T.R.Kunjam. Merit as assessed by the DPC was never challenged by T.R.Kunjam or Petitioner Suresh Singh Bhupal. Suresh Singh Bhupal has placed on record the ACR of T.R.Kunjam and his own to show, that he is above in the merit to T.R.Kunjam and that has not been contradicted. Thus, merit as considered by the DPC has never been challenged. As per the note sheet (page No. 55, 56) DPC could have been commenced on 5 situations mentioned as below: a) where eligible 10 persons were omitted to be considered; or b) where ineligible persons are considered by mistake; or c) where the seniority of a person is revised with retrospective effect resulting in a variance of the seniority list placed before the DPC; or d) where some procedural irregularity was committed by a DPC; or e) where adverse remarks in the ACRs were toned down or expunged after the DPC had considered the case of the officer. As per T.R. Kunjam, review DPC was called on the basis of Point e), whereas as per record there is no adverse remark toned down, this DPC recorded that there is no adverse remark against T.R.Kunjam if there would have been adverse remark, T.R. Kunjam would not even have been considered. Therefore, overall consideration is the requirement. T.R.Kunjam has never raised voice in the Year 2020, 2021 or 2022, but after accepting promotion, made request for correction of ACR. And after order of correction of ACR dated 09.11.2021, he did not make representation of review DPC and he remained silent. There is delay and latches on part of T.R. Kunjam in making the claim for review DPC which has not been justified. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner Suresh Singh Bhupal in support of his case relies on the judgment in the matter of Lakhi Ram vs. State of Haryana reported in {(1981) 2 SCC 674 }, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 1 & 2, which reads as under:- 1. The only ground on which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court is that the appellant has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the action of the government expunging the adverse remarks made in the 11 annual confidential report of Respondent 6. The High Court took the view that the appellant was not entitled to complain against the expungement of adverse remarks made in the confidential report of another officer. But this view is, in our opinion, erroneous because the effect of expungement of adverse remarks in the confidential report of Respondent 6 is to prejudice the chances of promotion of the appellant and if the appellant is able to show that the expungement of the remarks was illegal and invalid, the adverse remarks would continue to remain in the confidential report of Respondent 6 and that would improve the chances of promotion of the appellant vis-à-vis Respondent 6. The appellant was, therefore, clearly entitled to show that the government acted beyond the scope of its power in expunging the adverse remarks in the confidential report of Respondent 6 and that the expungement of the adverse remarks should be cancelled. The appellant had, in the circumstances, locus standi to maintain the writ petition and the High Court was in error in rejecting it on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the writ petition. 2. This was the reason why we allowed the appeal and, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the High Court, remanded the writ petition to the High Court for disposal on merits. 5. He would also place reliance in the matter of Union of India v. S.K. Goel, (2007) 14 SCC 641, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 23 to 28, which reads as under:- 23. We have carefully considered the rival submissions with reference to the records placed and material placed before us and the judgment of the Tribunal and that of the High Court. We heard extensive arguments from both sides. The 12 only question that arises for consideration in the instant case is as to whether the High Court has erred in its failure/omission to take into consideration the government instructions for regulating recording of ACRs which provide for only communication of adverse remarks in ACRs. 24. In the instant case, Respondent 1 had received no adverse remarks and had rather been graded at the level of the prescribed benchmark of “above average”, therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General, there was neither any onus nor requirement upon the appellant to have communicated the ACR entry to Respondent 1. 25. At the time of hearing, the original record was placed before us. We have carefully perused the same. DPC, in our view, followed the prescribed norms as also applied its discretion vested in it to determine the comparative merit of the eligible officers and thereafter made recommendations in order of merit. There was thus no occasion or justification for interference in the order passed by the appellants, as upheld by the Tribunal. 26. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1 placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam [(1996) 2 SCC 363 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 519 : AIR 1996 SC 1661] . In our opinion, the said decision is entirely distinguishable on the facts and circumstances from the case on hand and is wrongly been relied upon by the High Court. In U.P. Jal Nigam case [(1996) 2 SCC 363 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 519 : AIR 1996 SC 1661] , the officer concerned Shri P.C. Jain had been downgraded at a certain point of time. Before the High Court, it had been alleged that downgrading of entry could not be termed as adverse and that the same should be communicated. The U.P. Jal Nigam Service Rules provided for communication of adverse 13 entries. In this case, downgrading had been done by comparison and there appears to be no reason recorded for such downgrading. However, in the instant case, the downgrading still meets the benchmark and therefore, merely because certain persons have been assessed by DPC to be better than the respondent, did not imply that he should have been communicated his grading. 27. In our opinion, the judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference inasmuch as it followed the well-settled dictum of service jurisprudence that there will ordinarily be no interference by the courts of law in the proceedings and recommendations of DPC unless such DPC meetings are held illegally or in gross violation of the rules or there is misgrading of confidential reports. In the present case, DPC had made an overall assessment of all the relevant confidential reports of the eligible officers who were being considered. DPC considered the remarks of the reviewing officers. There was clear application of mind. Respondent 1 did fulfil the benchmark. Hence, the impugned direction of the High Court ought not to have been issued as the same will have the impact of causing utter confusion and chaos in the cadre of the Indian Revenue Service and the Customs and Central Excise Service. 28. It was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1 that the entries for the period had an element of adverse reflection and for that purpose the seniority of Respondent 1 was downgraded and, therefore, ACR ought to have been communicated to Respondent 1. In our opinion, the observations of the High Court are wholly unjustified inasmuch as the post of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise is a post required to be filled up on selection made strictly on the basis of merit. No judicial review of the DPC proceedings, 14 which are ordinarily conducted in accordance with the standing government instructions and rules is warranted. The norms and procedure for DPC are prescribed in OM dated 10-4-1989. It is thus seen that the decision taken by the appellants has been as per the instructions issued on the subject that only adverse entries and remarks are to be communicated and there is no provision to communicate the downgrading of ACR to a government employee. The decision of the Central Government is in strict accordance with the prevailing rules and government instructions. In the absence of any violation, the impugned order of the High Court while undertaking a judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is wholly unjustified. Since the matter of seniority has been well settled and this Court in a plethora of cases has held that the seniority/promotion granted on the strength of DPC selection should not be unsettled after a lapse of time. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where there are no adverse remarks whatsoever against Respondent 1, the High Court ought not to have interfered with and passed the impugned direction. This apart, as per the instructions contained in Para 6.21 of DOP&T Order No. 22011/5/86/Estt. D dated 19-4-1981, as amended, DPC is not required to be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in CRs but to make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in CRs. DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court, in our opinion, is liable to be set aside. 6. In support of case of Suresh Singh Bhupal, counsel would also place reliance in the matter of Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. 15 Jagdish Sharan Varshney {(2009) 4 SCC 240}, Amit Shandilya vs. State of Chhattisgarh {WPS No.3033/2023}, SK Tigga vs. State of Chhattisgarh {WA No.265 of 2026}, Chandragupta IFS vs. Secretary, Government of India {(AIR 1995 SC 44)}, Gaurishankar and others vs. Union of India with Suresh Gupta {AIR 1995 SC 55}, M.V. Thimmaiah and Others vs. UPSC {(2008) 2 SCC 119}, B.V. Sivaiah and others vs. K. Addanki Babu {AIR 1998 SC 2565}. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondent namely TR Kunjam submits that Suresh Singh Bhupal has assailed the order dated 25.06.2024, by virtue of which TR Kunjam was notionally promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer with effect from 10.01.2018. The order dated 25.06.2024 was passed pursuant to the proceedings of the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 10.06.2024, whereby it was recommended by the committee that TR Kunjam be promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer. It is further submitted that on 10.01.2018, the DPC was convened for the purpose of promotion from the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer. It is an admitted position that as per the gradation list of the Executive Engineer for the year 2016, TR Kunjam was senior to Suresh Singh Bhupal. The criterion for the promotion from the post of EE to SE was merit-cum- seniority. Taking into consideration Rule 7 (9) of The Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules 2003, Suresh Singh Bhupal was promoted as he was having 5 years ACR as Excellent whereas TR Kunjam was not having 5 years ACR as Excellent. It is pertinent to mention here that ACR for the period starting from 26.07.2012 to 31.03.2016 were never 16 communicated to TR Kunjam, as a result of which, he could not make representation for the upgradation of ACR. TR Kunjam moved an application under Right To Information Act and in pursuance of the application, the copy of ACR were furnished on him. The representation was made by TR Kunjam for the upgradation of ACR but unfortunately no decision was taken by the competent authority to decide the representation of TR Kunjam. Thereafter, TR Kunjam preferred a Writ Petition bearing WPS/ 3736/2018, which was disposed off by this court vide order dated 17.05.2018 directing to take decision on the representation of TR Kunjam. The respondent No.1 acted upon representation of TR Kunjam and by the communication dated 17.01.2019, the ACR was upgraded from very good to Excellent i.e., A to A+. The foundation of correction of the ACR from A to A+ was on the basis of grading given by the Engineer-in-Chief who was the reviewing authority. TR Kunjam again preferred a Writ Petition before this Court for issuance of suitable direction for reconsideration of ACR for the period 01.04.2014 13.04.2016. On 05.10.2021, the communication was made by the then Chief Secretary, who was the accepting authority from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2016 to the Secretary of Public Works Department and by virtue of which, the ACR were upgraded from very good to Excellent i.e., A to A+. In pursuance of communication dated 05.10.2021, further communication dated 09.11.2021 was made by the Secretary, Public Works Department intimating TR Kunjam that the ACR are being upgraded by the then accepting authority. lt is further reiterated by TR Kunjam that the communication dated 05.10.2021 was made taking into account the 17 opinion and the grading given by the Engineer-in-Chief who was the reviewing authority and was having technical qualification to assess the working capacity and knowledge of all subordinates, which includes Suresh Singh Bhupal and TR Kunjam. The aforesaid facts categorically establish that the upgradation of TR Kunjam's ACRs was not a mechanical or arbitrary exercise, but was a considered decision taken by the highest authorities in the State Government as per the settled principle of law that every ACR should be communicated to the employee even if it is not adverse. In service jurisprudence, the adverse entry and adverse remarks are altogether different concept. In the case in hand, though TR Kunjam was graded very good, but no adverse remarks were recorded in any of the ACR of TR Kunjam by any authority which include reporting, reviewing and accepting. In the year 2020, one post of Superintendent Engineer was lying vacant as a result of which the DPC was convened by virtue of which Mr. N.K.Lal was promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer. In the year 2022, again one post of Superintendent Engineer was vacant as result of which the DPC was again convened and the TR Kunjam was promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer. In the year 2022, Suresh Singh Bhupal, TR Kunjam as well as Mr. N.K.Lal , all were holding the substantive post of Superintendent Engineer. Since TR Kunjam was senior to Suresh Singh Bhupal and his ACR's were upgraded from very good to Excellent i.e. A to A+. Therefore, he made a representation for review DPC so that he can get promotion with effect from 10.01.2018. The respondent No. 1 acted upon the representation of TR Kunjam and has prepared a note sheet. Even, the opinion was sought from the department 18 of general administration and vide note sheet dated 13.3.2024, the GAD had opined under what conditions the review DPC could be convened. Even the parties herein was intimated vide communication dated 03.07.2024 reason for convening of review DPC. On a conspectus of the aforesaid facts, two positions stand conclusively established: firstly, that TR Kunjam was, at all material times, senior to Suresh Singh Bhupal; and second that upon correction of his ACRs, TR Kunjam possessed Excellent' ACRs for the entire intervening period of five years. In terms of the applicable provisions of the 2003 Rules, TR Kunjam was, therefore, entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 10.1.2018. The representation of TR Kunjam came to be considered by Respondent No. 1 in a fair and objective manner, and a decision was accordingly taken to convene a Review DPC so as to settle the legitimate claim of TR Kunjam. The Review DPC was duly convened on 10.06.2024 and recommended the promotion of TR Kunjam to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 10.01.2018, being the date on which he would have been promoted, but for the delay and error in the recording and communication of his ACRs, have been denied promotion. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of Suresh Singh Bhupal that he has been wrongly prejudiced by the impugned order is wholly fallacious and misconceived. The promotion of TR Kunjam has occasioned no prejudice whatsoever to Suresh Singh Bhupal, whose own promotion remains wholly undisturbed; the impugned order merely restores TR Kunjam to the position to which he was, in law and on merits, and was always entitled. 19 8. In support of this case, learned counsel representing TR Kunjam places reliance in the matter of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and Others {(2009) 16 SCC 146} wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph Nos.5, 8 & 10 as under:- 5. According to the appellant, the adverse entries, namely, “good” were not communicated. The said aspect ought not to have been considered while considering his promotion. In support of the above claim, he relied on the decision of this Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India [(2008) 8 SCC 725 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771 : (2008) 7 Scale 403] . 8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark “very good” is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of “good” was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of “good” should have been communicated to him as he was having “very good” in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non- communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or getting other benefits. Hence, such non- communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the abovereferred decision (Dev Dutt case [(2008) 8 SCC 725 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771 : (2008) 7 Scale 403] , SCC p. 738, para 41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries “good” if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him. 20 10. Since the appellant had retired from service, we make it clear that he is not entitled to any pay or allowances for the period for which he had not worked in the Higher Administrative Grade Group A, but his retrospective promotion from 28-8-2000 shall be considered for the benefit of refixation of his pension and other retiral benefits as per rules. 9. Further, he would place reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. G.R. Meghwal reported in {(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1291} in which following has been observed in paragraphs 1, 6, 10, 12 and 30:- 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 740 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal allowing the O.A. No. 430 of 2011 by directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess his suitability for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR of 2007-2008, Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal. 6. The Tribunal opined that the remarks entered for the year 2007-2008 were clearly adverse, which warranted communication to the officer concerned within the time limit prescribed. This was to enable him to submit his representation but no such opportunity was given to the officer. Considering the fact that in the earlier two years his ACRs were found to be “Very Good” and the subsequent ACR for the year 2007-2008 though was by the same reporting officer, the same was “Good”, the same was arbitrary. The Tribunal hence set aside the rejection of the 21 representation and directed to review the case of the respondent ignoring the below benchmark “Good” for the year 2007-2008 and to reconsider the case of the respondent accordingly. 10. It is submitted that in that view of the matter and when the respondent was having below benchmark ACR, i.e., “Good” in the year 2007-2008, which was considered by the DPC, the respondent was rightly denied the functional upgradation in the SAG of ITS Group-A in the pay band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-. 12. It is submitted that in the present case, the subsequent representation against the below benchmark was considered by a duly constituted committee consisting of expertise on the subject. It is submitted that after considering the grading of 2007-2008 and material on record, the Committee rejected the representation of the respondent herein. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305 : AIR 1990 SC 434. It is submitted that as held by this Court whether a particular candidate is fit for a particular post or not, has to be decided by the duly constituted committee, which has expertise on the subject. It is submitted that as observed, the Court has no such expertise and the decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection or proved mala-fides affecting the selection etc. 30. Therefore, in view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that though the respondent was graded as “Very Good” in the ACRs for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and was graded only “Good” in the ACR for the year 2007-2008 by 22 the very same reporting and reviewing officer, despite the fact that specifically the respondent was given the opportunity against the ACR for the year 2007-2008. However, no valid reasons are given for rejecting the representation, we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal and the High Court have not committed any error in directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess the suitability of the respondent for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR for the year 2007-2008. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this Court is called for. 10.Reliance has also been placed by him in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. SP Nayyar {(2014) 14 SCC 370}, Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India {(2019) 9 SCC 566}, Devdutt vs. Union of India {AIR 2008 SC 2513}, Yogendra Babu Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. {2023 SCC OnLine Chh 4450}, Amit Shandilya vs. State of C.G. & Ors. {WPS No.3033/2023, C.G. High Court}, Pushpa Kiram Bhagat vs. State of C.G. {2025 SCC OnLine Chh 13914}, SS Tigga vs. State of CG and Others {WA No.265 of 2026, CG High Court}. 11.Learned counsel for the petitioner NK Lal submits that it is not in dispute that the NK Lal is the most senior than other private respondent and initially when the meeting of the D.P.C. was convened by the respondent State on 23.03.11 for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer, the private respondents were not in the zone of consideration for promotion, therefore the case of NK Lal along with another candidate was considered by the D.P.C. and denied the promotion for the reason some 23 adverse remark made by the then Principal Secretary in the ACR of NK Lal for the year of 2009 & 2010. The above adverse remark made by then Principal Secretary on 22.03.2011 and in very next day on 23.03.2011 he was sitting in the meeting of the D.P.C. as member of the D.P.C. and showing his biasness against NK Lal. Further, no opportunity was given by the state to NK Lal regarding his adverse ACR, nor was justified by the respondent State. Furthermore, from perusal of record it is apparent that, the ACR reporting authority given the grade "A" to NK Lal which was downgraded by the then Principal Secretary on 22.03.2011 just before one day of the meeting of the D.P.C., no explanation or reply has been filed by the respondent state in this aspect. Whereas the same is not permissible under the eyes of law, therefore when NK Lal gathered the information and copies of the ACR under right to information act 2005, he filed W.P.S. No. 3184/2024 before this Court and the same is deserved to be allowed on the basis of the ground raised by NK Lal in that writ petition. It is also not disputed facts, as after 7 years of time, the meeting of the D.P.C. for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer was convened in which the respondent state illegally given the weightage to the Suresh Singh Bhupal in the promotion while considering his ACR of last five years, whereas according to the information of NK Lal, the private respondent was facing with some inquiry in the year of 2016-17, therefore his ACR of 2017 was deliberately not tabulated, when the grading was made by the D.P.C. in his meeting dated 10.01.2018 and through the undisclosed / unfair method, the committee declared the private respondent ACR as excellent, whereas no such material in this regard is available in the D.P.C. 24 Proceeding, and through the illegal method/ process, the respondent authority had allowed Suresh Singh Bhupal to supersede NK Lal. Looking into the illegality in the D.P.C. proceeding, vide order dated 20.06.2024, this Court directed the respondent to produce the record of the D.P.C. dated 10.01.2018. After giving the undue benefit to Suresh Singh Bhupal, in the year of 2020 the meeting of the D.P.C. was convened and thereafter case of NK Lal was considered and vide order dated 21.12.2020 the respondent authority promoted NK Lal as superintending Engineer. However, for considering the claim of the TR Kunjam alone, the review D.P.C. was convened by the respondent state for the years of 2018 and promoted TR Kunjam as superintending Engineer, in the result, the respondent authority further reviewed the D.P.C. of 2020 for giving the benefit to Suresh Singh Bhupal, and cancelled the promotion order of NK Lal on 18.10.2024 and promoted Suresh Singh Bhupal as superintending Engineer ( once again allowed them to supersede NK Lal) and vide order dated 26.11.2024 promoted TR Kunjam as Chief Engineer, which is also under challenged before this Court. Case of NK Lal was not considered suitable for promotion to S.E. in the year of 2011 due to some adverse entries, made by the then principal secretary during the D.P.C. , however, the same were not communicated to him. This Court (in WPS No. 7053/2016) has also held that, if the adverse ACR was not communicated within relevant time, the same has lost his existence, and the same cannot be taken on account by the D.P.C., however in the instant case, when the D.P.C. convened by the respondent state in the year of 2011, the respondent had failed to do so and illegally deprived NK Lal from 25 promotion and the same thing was again repeated in different way in the subsequent D.P.C. by allowing the junior person to supersede NK Lal and no justification in this regard has been given by the respondent State. Whereas it is also well settled that the ACR(s) of employee (in the instant case 2009/2010) were not communicated to him, at any point of time by the Committee, which was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725. It is well settled law, as the D.P.C./Selection Committee will go through the records of the eligible officers and make their assessment after deliberating on the quality of the officer as indicated in the various columns recorded by the Reporting/Reviewing officer/Accepting Authority in the ACRs for different years and then finally arrive at the classification to be assigned to each officer. The Selection Committee would take into account orders regarding appreciation for the meritorious work done by the concerned officers. Similarly, it would also keep in view orders awarding penalties or any adverse remarks communicated to the officer, which, even after due consideration of his representation, have not been completely expunged." However, no any material in this aspect was placed by the respondent state in the matter. Respondent state has not placed the entire record of the any of the D.P.C. The above facts show that, the respondent state is trying to hide some facts, as to how the D.P.C. determined the grading of the candidates and on which basis, the DPC found the excellent performance of the private respondent by making the recommendation. Since something is fishy, therefore when NK Lal sought the information under Right to information act 2005, regarding the entire document of the 26 D.P.C. in respect of the private respondent, the respondent state refused to disclosed the relevant information and in the first appeal stage, some documents were disclosed after hiding some part. Why the respondent state tried to protect the illegality which were committed by the respondent authority for giving the undue advantage to the private respondents. It is submitted that, if the performance of the private respondent was found "excellent" then, it has been required to disclosed/displaced the relevant facts regarding the excellent performance of the candidate, so that, the other candidates can be motivated and develop their performance, in this aspect, it is also required to disclosed the relevant ACR, which were found excellent by the committee for maintaining the free, fair and transparent process of the Departmental promotion committee, however the respondent state had failed to do so. It is submitted that, what emerges from the above submission is that fairness is an essential ingredient of all administrative actions including a selection process. In the matter of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences-vs-Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and Others, reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC 481, wherein it has been held that the function, performed by a Selection Committee, is administrative in nature. In the instant case the respondent state had failed to do so. For protecting the illegality committed by the respondent state during the DPC and for harassment of NK Lal, the entire exercise has been done by the respondent. It is submitted that, the DPC held on dated 10/01/2018 the ACR's of last preceding years were considered such as (03/2013 to 03/2017) and Suresh Singh Bhupal was selected on the basis of excellent grading. When the ACR of 03/2017 is not available then how it 27 was possible to recommend and promoted Suresh Singh Bhupal in the said DPC on 10/01/2018. It is a case of violation of the promotion rules and the respondent authority deliberately suppressed the material in the DPC minutes of meeting for promotion of the E.E to S.E. Dated 10/01/2018, 07/12/2020, 07/10/2022 and their review DPC on dated 10/08/2024, 16/08/2024, 13/11/2024 as such not mentioned anywhere to select the excellent grading candidates. Whereas from perusal of the DPC minutes of meeting for promotion S.E to C.E held on dated 20/08/2010- clearly mentioned the chief engineer are the HOD of department hence preference would be Excellent grading. It is submitted that, as per knowledge of NK Lal, Mr. G. S. Mandavi (colleague of the petitioner) who is holding the post of chief Engineer PWD (E&M) Bilaspur is going to retirement after six months on dated 30th September 2026, and NK Lal who is holding the post of Superintending Engineer E&M Bilaspur is going to be retire after one year on 30th September 2027, whereas TR Kunjam who holding the post of chief engineer pwd E&M Raipur going to retire on 30th November 2031, and respondent No.4 who holding the post of Superintending Engineer E&M Raipur going to retirement on dated 30th may 2031 and they are depriving the petitioner of his right by managing the higher authority of the state. It is submitted that, the entire exercise has been done by the respondent only for avoiding the legal right of NK LAL. It is well settled law that two unequal positions of employee cannot be treated as equal as since the private respondents neither fulfilled the minimum requisite criteria for promotion in the year 2011, therefore, they cannot be treated equivalent to NK Lal in the year of 2011. Further, no 28 DPC was convened by the respondent till 2018, however, the respondent deliberately committed illegality in the promotion for closing the vacancy of promotion to NK Lal during the seven years. It is submitted that, consideration for promotion is the rights of the employee. The promotion is a statuary right as regards the condition of service applicable to the petitioner at the time when he entered in the service of the respondent authority and the condition of service could not be altered to his disadvantage. However, the respondent authority had mala-fidely deprived NK Lal for promotion on the higher post and blocked the chance of the promotion of NK Lal by way of illegality committed by them. Being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the respondent authority is duty bound to create the promotional avenues for the petitioner having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the respondent authority deliberately through the arbitrary manner has seized the fundamental/legal right of the petitioner. The entire promotion proceeding suffered with the unfairness, favoritism, arbitrary and discriminatory act of the respondents and the D.P.C. proceeding is also against the C.G. Civil Services promotion rules 2003 as well as the service rules mentioned in the writ petition. It is well settled law that a person whose name appears in the select list has no right of appointment on the post. Though denial of appointment for an arbitrary, unreasonable or malafide reason is also not permissible and the Court have power to quash the impugned proceeding which is suffered with the arbitrariness, discrimination, biasness of the authority and the above facts is clearly 29 established in the present matter. Discretionary power vested in any authority could not be exercised arbitrarily, in a high- handed manner, actuated with mala fide intentions and flown from some biasness to achieve some extraneous goal. The action of the respondent's prima-facie seems to be discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights of the NK Lal. It is well settled law that the country is governed with the rules of law, not by the whims of the respondents' officials, however, in the instant case, the respondents failed to comply with the provision of law. From perusal of the record, it has appeared that, the impugned act of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of the well settled provision of law. Whereas the discretionary power vested in any statutory authority could not be exercised arbitrarily, in a high-handed manner. From perusal of the facts of the instant case, the biasness, arbitrariness & discrimination of the public authority is clearly established, thus the instant writ petition is deserving to be allowed, and the impugned order is required to be quashed by the High Court. The entire act and actions on the part of the respondent's authority are discriminatory and violation of the well settled principles of law and its wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and suppressing the statutory right of the petitioner-NK Lal. 12.In support of his case, counsel for the petitioner namely NK Lal would place reliance in the matter of Gurdial Singh Fiji vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 368, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the non-consideration of the appellant's representation as illegal and directed reconsideration of the appellant's case by taking into consideration the Govt. decision on his representation and his service 30 records up to date. He also places reliance in the matter of UPSC vs. Hiranyalal Dev {AIR 1988 SC 1069}, Union of India vs. AK Narula {(2007) 11 SCC 10}. Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology {(2002) 5 SCC 111}. 13. Learned counsel for the State so far as WPS No.3757 of 2023 is concerned would submit that the present petition utterly suffers from the delay and latches, for which no explanation at all has been given by the present petitioner. The order impugned in the present petition is 09.11.2021 (annexure P/1) whereas the present petition is preferred on 19.06.2023 and no explanation has been offered in this regard. Therefore, this petition is deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches solely. Further, by way of this petition petitioner seeks to challenge the upgradation of the ACR's of private respondent Shri T.R.Kunjam, as such the petitioner has no locus at all to challenge the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 (annexure P/1) as no legal right of the petitioner has been violated by the said order. In the absence of any legal injury, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 (annexure P/1) and therefore the petition is not at all maintainable. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of any legal right in his favour for the enforcement of which a writ may be issued by this Hon'ble Court. In order to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the precondition is the existence of a legal right in favour of the petitioner, which is totally absent in the present petition and for this reason, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is equally well settled law that review of adverse ACR's are exclusive domain of the 31 employer/authority and the petitioner has no say to it. If a jurisdiction is vested in a authority by virtue of law, it will always up to the authority to exercise the power within it's jurisdiction and it cannot be directed to act in a particular manner. Therefore, the petition preferred by the petitioner is merely on the basis of the apprehension and as of now the petitioner has not suffered any legal injury directly or indirectly by virtue of the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed in this ground only. 14.Learned State counse in respect of WPS No.3145 of 2024 submits that during the pendency of the present Writ Petition the petitioner filed a subsequent petition i.e., WPS no. 3640/2024 challenging the order dated 25.06.2024, whereby, the review DPC of the DPC held on 10.01.2018 was convened and TR Kunjam has been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 10.01.2018 and by the same order Suresh Singh Bhupal has been demoted to the post of Executive Engineer as such the instant petition had become infructous. It is thus respectfully submitted by the answering respondent that the present petition has now become infructuous as the petitioner has challenged the outcome of the review DPC and the order dated 25.06.2024 has been passed. 15.Learned counsel for the State in respect of WPS No.3640 of 2024 would submit that order dated 25/06/2024 (Annexure P/1) was issued as an outcome of the review DPC dated 10.06.2024 of the original DPC 10/01/2018. It is pertinent to mention here that in the DPC dt. 10.01.2018, overall assessment/valuation of the last five years was done which ultimately formed the basis for recommendation of promotion. Pursuant to 32 the representation made by Shri T.R.Kunjam dated 20.04.2023, the matter was considered at the departmental level and after seeking necessary approval decision was taken for holding review DPC of the original DPC dt. 10.01.2018. During consideration of the case it was found that the respondent no. 03/T.R.Kunjam is entitled for reconsideration after upgradation in the ACR as it was on 10/01/2018 and therefore, during the DPC proceedings on overall assessment/valuation of the last five year, it was found that respondent no. 03 is entitled to be promoted against the post of Superintendent Engineer as on date when the DPC was constituted on 10/01/2018 considering his upgraded ACR's. During the proceeding it was found that Suresh Singh Bhupal and respondent no. 03 they both were within the zone of consideration and was having Excellent grading but the respondent no. 03/TR Kunjam being senior in the list and being more meritorious, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was recommended for promotion against the post of Superintendent Engineer. It is further pertinent to mention here that at the relevant point of time there was only one vacant post of Superintending Engineer as such, the case of the petitioner was not recommended as there was no vacancy left for considering his name, therefore, no recommendation was made. From the entire proceeding that has been done in the light of the review DPC held on 10/06/2024, nowhere, the authorities have observed that Suresh Singh Bhupal was subject to any departmental inquiry for which he has been punished with major penalty. It may be seen that the review DPC has been constituted and after the case of the respondent no. 03 was considered finding him eligible for next promotional post and thereafter, only one post 33 was left for Superintendent Engineer, the respondent authorities were left with no other option except to pass the order of demotion. In the complete scenario, it may be seen that on the basis of the order dated 25/06/2024 giving rise to a consideration for the name of the respondent no. 03 for promotion against the post of Superintendent Engineer was not arbitrary and unreasonable it is an administrative procedure that has to be followed and it is settled laws that as and when review DPC is conducted the person whose name has to be considered in review DPC would be entitled for the next promotional post and if the prejudice is caused to the respondent no. 3 that can always be rectified in the review DPC in the light of upgraded ACR's. Therefore, the say of the petitioner that before issuing the order of demotion he would have been afforded opportunity of hearing is baseless, the respondent authorities have no occasion for calling upon the petitioner to explain his conduct he may be punished which even otherwise would have been merely empty formality. The petitioner is himself judging the order dated 25/06/2024 accepting this to be the petitioner an order of punishment. However, misconstrued the legal aspects and the procedures provided under Rule 14 of Rules, 1966, he may reconsider and realize that he has not been punished, rather the order dated 25/06/2024 by which he has been demoted is outcome of a review DPC. It is further submitted, that the respondent no. 03, who was awarded with the lesser grade in his ACR had filed Writ Petitions before the Court on two of the occasions this Court has directed the respondent authorities to consider his representation in accordance with law and when the representation of and grievances of respondent no. 03 was considered 34 by the respondent authorities, they found that it appropriate to upgrade the earlier grades that have been awarded to the respondent no. 03. It is not in dispute that earlier when the committee was constituted on 10/01/2018 have given thought to the ACRs of the petitioner as "Excellent" and the remark that has been given to one Shri NK Lal and respondent no. 03 as "Very Good", but under the changed circumstances the earlier remarks would not be made applicable for the very reason that the review DPC has been constituted to consider the revisited/ upgraded ACR's and other things, therefore, the committee which was considering the case of the respondent No. 3 on the term of review DPC has to evaluate by conducting overall assessment/valuation of the last five years upgraded ACR placed before them. It is humbly submitted that the very concept of review DPC is to provide justice to an employee who has been left over for one or the other reason and has been deprived of the promotion at the time of earlier DPC, by way of the review DPC the same can be corrected and can be made good and it is the duty of the authorities to take into consideration that the employees may not suffer. It is a settled law that a review DPC can be convened under the following circumstances:- i. When the eligible persons have been left out from being considered. ii. When the ineligible persons has been wrongly considered. iii. When a person has been given seniority with retrospective effect, thereby affecting the gradation list. iv. When the DPC has committed procedural irrgularity. v. When adverse entry of any employee has been expunged or modified. As is clear from above, the Administrative Department is competent to hold a review meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 35 10.01.2018; the opinion of the General Administration Department is not required for the same. In continuation of the letter referred to under the above subject, it is informed as per the instructions that in relation to the representation submitted by Shri T.R. Kujam, Superintending Engineer (E/M), for review of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 10.01.2018 for promotion from Executive Engineer to the post of Superintending Engineer (E/M), on the basis of the opinion received from the General Administration Department, administrative decision was taken to review the said meeting and a proposal was sent to the Public Service Commission. Regarding the said proposal, a review meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 10.06.2024. Based on the decision taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the said meeting, departmental order dated 25.06.2024 has been issued. In the instant case since the earlier ACRs which were graded as "Very Good" had resulted in taking away the right of promotion of the respondent no. 3, as such, it had all the right to question the same for its appropriate upgradation. Thereafter, when the same his upgraded, grading him "Excellent" he has all the right to be considered for promotion with effect from the date he has been left out which in the instant case is 10.01.2018. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in promoting the respondent No. 3 with effect from 10.01.2018 by convening a review DPC and since there was only 1 post of Superintending Engineer laying vacant at the relevant point of time, as such the petitioner was rightly demoted, as against one vacant post two persons could not be promoted. 36 16.Learned State counsel in respect of WPS No.2566 of 2025 submits that respondent no. 3 Shri T.R. Kunjam preferred a writ petition bearing WPS NO.3736/2018 before this Hon'ble Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 17/05/2018 directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the respondent no. 3 with respect to up- gradation of his ACR. It is respectfully submitted that in compliance of the order dated 17/05/2018 passed in WPS No. 3736/2018, the representation of the respondent no. 3 Shri T.R. Kunjam was considered and an order was passed on 14/05/2020 (Annexure P/7) by which the ACR of the respondent no. 3 were upgraded. It is most respectfully submitted that being aggrieved by the part of the order dated 14/05/2020 (Annexure P/7) by which the ACR for some period was not up-graded, the respondent no. 3 again preferred writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as WPS NO. 4612/2020 and the said writ petition was dispose of on 02.12.2020 (P/8) with direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention that a DPC was convened on 07/12/2020 for promotion from the post of EE (E&M) to the post of SE (E&M) and in the said DPC, the name of Shri N.K. Lal was recommended for promotion and pursuant to which he was granted promotion to the post of SE (E&M) from the post of EE (E&M). It is respectfully submitted that the State Government, Department of Public Works, pursuant to the order dated 02/12/2020 passed in WPS No. 4612/2020, considered the representation of the respondent no. 3 Shri T.R. Kunjam and passed a detailed order on 09/11/2021 by which the ACR 37 of the respondent no.3 for the period from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015, from 01/04/2015 10/08/2015 and from 12/08/2015 to 14/03/2016 were upgraded from A to A+ (excellent). It is submitted that after issuance of the order dated 09/11/2021 Respondent no. 3 preferred representation with a prayer that since his ACR for the period from 2012 to 2016 has been corrected / up-graded, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of SE from the post of EE with effect from 15/01/2018. It is respectfully submitted that admittedly in the DPC dated 10/01/2018 the name of the respondent no. 3 was also considered alongwith the petitioner and other candidates. However, the ACR of the petitioner was excellent and applying the principle of merit cum seniority, the name of the petitioner was recommended, but, since the ACR of the respondent no. 3 was up-graded at the later stage review DPC of DPC dated 10/01/2018 and as a natural consequences, the review DPC of DPC dated 10/01/2018 was convened on 10/06/2024 and the DPC recommended the name of respondent no. 3 Shri T.R. Kunjam for promotion with effect from 15/01/2018 to the post of SE and further recommended for demotion of the petitioner as on the date of original DPC, only 1 post was available. It is respectfully submitted that vide order dated 25/06/2024 the respondent no. 3 was granted promotion with effect from 15/01/2018 and the petitioner was demoted from the post of SE to the post of EE and the name of the respondent no. 3 was deleted from the gradation list of EE which was published earlier and the name of the petitioner was included and as a result, vide order dated 10/07/2024, separate gradation list as on 01/04/2018, 01/04/2019 and 01/04/2020 including the name of the petitioner were published. It is submitted that 38 after demotion of the petitioner, his name was included in the gradation list of EE and thereafter, he was promoted as per the order. it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of SE with effect from 21/12/2020 which is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the same. In view of the aforesaid submissions made herein, it is respectfully submitted that, the entire petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and substance and accordingly is liable to be dismissed being sans merit. 17.Learned counsel for the State in respect of WPS No.3184 of 2024 submits that it is respectfully submitted that the present petition has been filed after a long delay of 14 years and therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is respectfully submitted that, the Departmental Promotion Committee was conducted on 23/03/2011 with respect to granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer. It is respectfully submitted that, two candidates were considered for promotion from the post of Executive Engineer to post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2011 namely; Shri. G.S. Mandavi and Shri. N.K. Lal (the present petitioner). It is respectfully submitted that, the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the last five years was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and based on the remarks and grade provided in the ACR of last five years, the Departmental Promotion Committee found Shri. G.S. Mandavi, suitable for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer, because he had received "Very Good" in the remark column. However, in the ACR of 39 the petitioner of the year 2009 and 2010, there was some adverse entries and therefore the petitioner was not found suitable for the purpose of promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. Therefore, the petitioner was found "not suitable" thus could not be promoted in the year 2011. It is respectfully submitted that, for the second time, the petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer in the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 10/01/2018. It is respectfully submitted that, in the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 10/01/2018, five persons were considered for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer in which the present petitioner Shri. N.K. Lal, Engineer in received "Very Good" remark on the basis of valuation of his last five years of ACRs. However, only one post was available for promotion and therefore Shri. S.S. Bhupal, who had received "Excellent" remark on the basis of consideration of his last five years of ACR, has been found suitable for giving promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. It is respectfully submitted that the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer was considered for the third time in the DPC meeting held on 07.12.2020 and the DPC found the petitioner suitable for promotion the post of Superintending Engineer and therefore, the DPC in its meeting dated 07.12.2020 recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer.There is no material left in this petition and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 18.Learned counsel for the State in respect of WPS No.1721 of 2025 submits that that the petitioner/NK Lal was given promotion on the post of 40 Superintending Engineer vide order dated 21.12.2020 however, due to the subsequent development again a fresh order was passed on 02.12.2024 giving the promotion to the petitioner Shri N.K. Lal on the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 21.10.2022. However, the order dated 02.12.2024 has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further respectfully submitted that the petitioner had pleaded that, at the same time one identical situation, in the case of the respondent No. 5, T.R. Kunjam has been accepted by the respondent authority and upgraded his adverse ACR and by way of Review D.P.C. had promoted him as Superintendent Engineer with effect from 15.01.2018 and once again ignored the claim of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4/ Shri S.S. Bhupal was given promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2020 and in the review DPC dated 13.11.2024 the petitioner Shri N.K. Lal was found fit and his name was recommended for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer from the year 2022. It is submitted that, pursuant to the recommendation of the review DPC dated 13.11.2024 order dated 02.12.2024 was passed promoting the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f 21.10.2022. It is submitted that, the order dated 02.12.2024 has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is necessary to mention that a DPC was convened on 07/12/2020 for promotion from the post of EE (E&M) to the post of SE (E&M) and in the said DPC, the name of petitioner Shri N.K. Lal was recommended for promotion and pursuant to which he was granted 41 promotion to the post of SE (E&M) from the post of EE (E&M). It is respectfully submitted that, pursuant to the order dated 02/12/2020 passed in WPS No. 4612/2020, considered the representation of the respondent no. 5 Shri T.R. Kunjam and passed a detailed order on 09/11/2021 by which the ACR of the respondent no. 5 for the period from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015, from 01/04/2015 to 10/08/2015 and from 12/08/2015 to 14/03/2016 were upgraded from A to A+ (excellent). It is respectfully submitted that, in the review DPC dated 16.08.2024, the name of Shri S.S. Bhupal respondent No. 4 was recommended for promotion on the principle of merit cum seniority. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the review DPC dated 16.08.2024, Shri S.S. Bhupal was given promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 21.12.2020 vide order dated 18.10.2024. It is submitted that, vide order dated 18.10.2024 itself petitioner was demoted back to the post of Executive Engineer. It is submitted that, as the respondent No. 5 T.R. Kunjam was given retrospective promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 15.01.2018, Shri S.S. Bhupal has been demoted on the post of Executive Engineer and he was given promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 21.12.2020. Due to the promotion given to the respondent no. 4 Shri S.S. Bhupal w.e.f. 21.12.2020 no post was vacant for the petitioner Shri N.K. Lal to be given promotion w.e.f. 21.12.2020 and therefore, the petitioner Shri N.K. Lal has been given promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 21.10.2022 vide order dated 02.12.2024, pursuant to the recommendation made by the review DPC in its meeting dated 13.11.2024. In view of the above, it is respectfully 42 submitted that, the answering respondent have acted in accordance with law and the case of the petitioner is being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 19.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 20. From the perusal of the documents annexed with the petitions as well as from the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the parties namely Suresh Singh Bhupal, TR Kunjam and NK Lal were Executive Engineers and their names were in zone for consideration in the Departmental Promotion Committee of promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer according to Chhattisgarh Public Works Engineering {Gazetted} Service Recruitment Rules, 2015 read with Chhattisgarh Public Service Promotion Rules, 2003, the criteria which has been fixed for consideration of their names for the DPC is Merit-cum-Seniority. Integrity of the concerned employee should be beyond doubtful and their five years ACR should be in Very Good category and in that period altogether no adverse remark (D) should have been passed against them. Details of immovable property was also on the criteria for consideration for promotion. 21.Upon these grounds, the DPC has considered the name of the parties as well as two other Executive Engineers on 10.01.2018 and on collective evaluation of five years ACR of the parties, Suresh Singh Bhupal was found to be in Excellent grading and his name was accordingly recommended for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, other persons were not recommended for the reason that no post was vacant otherwise also, both TR Kunjam and NK Lal were placed in Very Good 43 category. Suresh Singh Bhupal was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer vide order dated 15.01.2018. 22.TR Kunjam thereafter filed a WPS bearing No.3736/18 before this Court raising his grievance that his ACR for the year, 2012- 2016 requires reconsideration as the same has not been communicated timely, this Court vide order dated 17.05.2018 directed the Secretary, PWD to consider the case of TR Kunjam and to pass appropriate orders in respect of his representation for correction of his grade. On the basis of that order of this Court, representation of TR Kunjam was considered and on 14.05.2020, the Additional Secretary PWD has improved the grading of the ACR of TR Kunjam from very good (A) to Excellent (A+). From the order dated 14.05.2020, it transpires that the Chief Engineer who looks after the work of TR Kunjam has given him excellent grading for the period from 26.07.2012-31.3.2013, 01.04.2013-31.03.2014, and Accepting Authority i.e. Principal Secretary has concurred with the grading given by Reporting Authority i.e. Chief Engineer and accordingly grading of TR Kunjam was stated to be Excellent for the said period. However, for the period ranging between 01.04.2014-31.03.2015, 01.04.2015-10.08.2015 and 12.08.2015- 14.03.2016 was categorized as Very Good. Being aggrieved with this, TR Kunjam filed another Writ Petition bearing No.WPS/4612/2020 challenging the contents in para 5 of the order dated 14.05.2020 and this Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 directed the respondent authorities therein to consider the representation of the petitioner in that regard. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.11.2021, Additional Secretary, PWD Department, after approval of accepting authority, upgraded the ACR of TR Kunjam ranging 44 from year 03/2015 and 03/2016, 01.04.2014-31.03.2015, 01.04.2015- 10.08.2015 and 12.08.2015-14.03.2016 from Very Good to Excellent. In the meanwhile, NK LAL was promoted in pursuance of DPC dated 07.12.2020 as Superintending Engineer with effect from 21.12.2020 and TR Kunjam was recommended by the DPC as there was no post vacant. Thereafter, in the DPC meeting dated 07.10.2022, TR Kunjam was recommended to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer based upon the fact that his previous ACRs for five years were made very good (A) to Excellent (A+) as such, TR Kunjam was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer vide order dated 21.10.2022. Thereafter, TR Kunjam made a representation dated 20.04.2023 to the Secretary (PWD) for convening review DPC which was held all the way back on 10.01.2018 stating that after reconsideration of his ACR, he has been awarded Excellent in 5 years , as such, DPC held on 10.01.18 is required to be reconsidered and review DPC is required to be conducted for consideration of his name. The application for review DPC filed by TR Kunjam was objected by Suresh Singh Bhupal stating that application of TR Kunjam for review DPC is not in accordance with law as under the rules, if the grading of ACR were corrected and improved later on, the said ACR cannot be given effect to retrospectively as the DPC was conducted way back on 10.01.2018 and TR Kunjam has been promoted on 21.10.2022 based on correction of his grading in the ACR as on 10.01.2018, when the DPC was held, TR Kunjam was not recommended for the post of Superintending Engineer at that point of time and after a lapse of about 4 years, review DPC of DPC dated 10.01.2018 would not 45 be in accordance with law which is purely a futile exercise and as such, application for review DPC of TR Kunjam is required to be rejected. 23.However, application of TR Kunjam for review DPC was allowed and review DPC proceeding was initiated which culminated into passing of impugned order dated 25.06.2024 issued by the State Government by which, TR Kunjam was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.01.2018 on the basis of ‘No Work No Pay’ (It is to be noted that before review DPC, he was promoted with effect from 21.10.2022) while considering his gradation in the ACRs which was rectified later on, however, while promoting TR Kunjam, Suresh Singh Bhupal was demoted with effect from 15.01.2018 from the post of Superintending Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer, however, no recovery was directed to be issued against him. This gave cause of action to Suresh Singh Bhupal to file present writ petition, in which, TR Kunjam was arrayed as Respondent No.3. 24.It would be apt to note here that on the basis of order dated 25.06.2024 passed on application of review DPC, TR Kunjam was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer whereas, he was granted notional promotion from 10.01.2018. Now, challenge is to the order dated 25.06.2024 by which as stated above, TR Kunjam was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on the one hand and on the other, Suresh Singh Bhupal was demoted to the post of Executive Engineer. 25.The moot questions for consideration before this Court is whether review DPC can be allowed on the strength of subsequent rectification of ACR of an employee by the competent officer and even if it is allowed whether any 46 order such as the nature of impugned order dated 25.06.2024 can be passed ? 26.From the entire facts, it is quite vivid that so far as case of Suresh Singh Bhupal is concerned, there is no any infirmity in his ACRs and it was up to the mark as excellent (A+). When the first DPC dated 10.01.2018 was convened, there is nothing on record to show that Suresh Singh Bhupal was not fit for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer as his ACRs were excellent. Criteria of last five years ACRs to be very good and submission of immovable property details were also fulfilled and he was fit for promotion in all respect and accordingly, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. So far as case of TR Kunjam is concerned, when first DPC was convened on 10.01.2018, his ACR was not excellent (A+) though he was found fit in the DPC as his ACR was Very Good (A). Likewise, case of NK Lal though on the basis of other aspects, he was worth consideration, however, his ACR was not excellent and was Very Good. Since there being no post vacant, neither TR Kunjam nor NK Lal was recommended for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. 27. However, subsequent events followed when TR Kunjam filed WPS No. 3736/2018 seeking reconsideration of his 2012 ACR on the ground that it had not been communicated in time. Pursuant to the High Court's order dated 17.05.2018, the PWD reconsidered his case and, by order dated 14.05.2020, upgraded his ACR grading from Very Good (A) to Excellent (A+) for the periods 26.07.2012–31.03.2013 and 01.04.2013–31.03.2014, while retaining Very Good for subsequent years. Aggrieved, TR Kunjam filed WPS No. 4612/2020, following which the High Court directed 47 reconsideration. Consequently, by order dated 09.11.2021, his remaining ACRs for 2014–2016 were also upgraded from Very Good to Excellent. 28. Meanwhile, the DPC dated 07.12.2020 promoted NK Lal as Superintending Engineer, while TR Kunjam was only recommended due to non-availability of vacancies. Based on his revised ACRs, the DPC dated 07.10.2022 recommended TR Kunjam for promotion, and he was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 21.10.2022. Thereafter, TR Kunjam sought a review DPC of the 10.01.2018 DPC, contending that his upgraded ACRs entitled him to promotion from that date. Suresh Singh Bhupal objected, arguing that subsequently revised ACRs could not be applied retrospectively and that reopening the 2018 DPC after four years was legally impermissible. Despite the objection, the State Government convened a review DPC and, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2024, granted TR Kunjam retrospective promotion as Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.01.2018 on a "No Work No Pay" basis. As a consequence, Suresh Singh Bhupal was retrospectively reverted from Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer with effect from 15.01.2018, though no recovery of salary or benefits was ordered against him. 29.Firstly, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, and in particular Rule 7, which governs promotion on the basis of merit- cum-seniority. For proper appreciation of the controversy, sub- rule (6), (7) and (9) of Rule 7, which lays down the manner in which the Departmental Promotion Committee is required to assess the comparative merit of candidates, is reproduced hereunder:— 48 7. Promotion on the basis of merit-cum- seniority- (6) The Departmental Promotion/screening committee shall assess the suitability of the public servants for promotion on the bases of their service record and with particular reference to the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 5 preceding years, However, in cases where the required qualifying service is more than 5 years, the Departmental promotion/screening committee shall see the record with particular reference to the ACRs for the years equal to the require qualifying service. (7) When one or more ACRs are not available for any reason for the relevant period, the Departmental promotion/screening committee shall consider the ACRs of the years preceding the period in question. *** (9) The Departmental promotion/screening committee shall make a relative/comparative assessment of the merits of public servants who are within the zone of consideration and make an overall grading of the public servants merit on the basis of their service records and place them in the categories as " Outstanding", Very-Good", "Average" and "Poor" as the case may be However, only those public servants who are graded as "Very-Good" and above will be included in the select list, by placing the public servants graded as "Outstanding" on top followed by those graded as "Very-Good", subject to availability of vacancies, with the public servants with the same grading maintaining their inter-se-seniority in the feeder cadre/part of the service/pay scales of the post.” 30.From the perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is quite vivid that the promotion should be based on merit-cum-seniority, merit would be governing factor 49 and seniority only acts a tie breaker where candidates are otherwise found to be approximately equal in merit. 31.Now this Court would proceed to deal with the first question that whether review DPC can be allowed on the strength of subsequent rectification of ACR? 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 has held in paragraph 44 which reads as under:- 44. We, therefore, direct that the “good” entry be communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On being communicated, the appellant may make the representation, if he so chooses, against the said entry within two months thereafter and the said representation will be decided within two months thereafter. If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment. 33.Thereafter, the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the matter of Guriqbal Singh vs. Union of India and Another reported in {2024 SCC OnLine Del 2353 } held in paragraph Nos.32 to 37 which reads as under:- 32. The plea of the respondents that only future DPC shall consider the upgraded ACRs, is unsustainable. We agree with the submission of Dr. Hooda that, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), which is of the year 2008, specifically contemplates 50 that, if on a representation the ACRs grading are upgraded, then the case of such an employee need to be considered by review DPC, paragraph 43 of which reads as under: “43. We are informed that the appellant has already retired from service. However, if his representation for upgradation of the “good” entry is allowed, he may benefit in his pension and get some arrears. Hence we direct that the “good” entry of 1993-1994 be communicated to the appellant forthwith and he should be permitted to make a representation against the same praying for its upgradation. If the upgradation is allowed, the appellant should be considered forthwith for promotion as Superintending Engineer retrospectively and if he is promoted he will get the benefit of higher pension and the balance of arrears of pay along with 8% per annum interest.” 33. The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the ACRs having been upgraded, the case of the petitioner need to be considered through the review DPC for promotion from the date his immediate junior have been promoted as Commandant. 34. The petitioner has relied upon the case of the one Lala Krishan Kumar Lal to state that, on the upgrading the ACR, the review DPC was held for considering Lala Krishan Kumar Lal case for promotion to the next higher post, retrospectively. The justification given by the respondents is that the ACR of Lala Krishan Kumar Lal was of the year 2008-2009, whereas the ACRs of the petitioner were of the years 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 and there is no provision 51 for communication of ACRs of the period prior to 2008-2009. But this stand of the respondents is overlooking the fact that, when the DPC was held on March 15, 2010, the judgment of Dev Dutt (Supra) was already holding the field. The respondents were required to communicate the below benchmark ACRs to the petitioner to enable him to submit a representation and if the gradings are upgraded, then to hold review DPC. So, in that sense, they cannot rely upon the OM dated April 13, 2010 to state that DPCs after April 13, 2010 would consider the below benchmark ACRs, which have been later upgraded on the representation made by a government employee. It is to state that, Lala Krishan Kumar Lal being junior to the petitioner got the benefit of the OM dated April 10, 2013 and also promoted as Commandant whereas the petitioner whose ACRs were of the year 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 and not 2008-2009, was denied the benefit though his ACRs were upgraded, which according to us is discriminatory, as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 35. We may also state here that the respondents have also taken a stand that the petitioner was found unfit because of DG's displeasure. We say nothing on this stand, as it is a fact that the grading in the ACRs having been upgraded on a representation made by the petitioner. The effect of upgrading of the ACRs and also the effect of the displeasure shall be seen/considered/looked into by the review DPC. 36. Mr. Tiwari has relied upon the judgments in the case of G.R. Meghwal (supra), Dr. Krashnendra Singh (supra) and Mukul Kumar Misra (supra). The same have no applicability to the issue which arose for consideration and decided by this Court in this order. 52 37. In view of our above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order dated February 12, 2015 is liable to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. The case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Commandant w.e.f. the date his immediate junior was promoted to the post of Commandant by taking into consideration the upgraded ACRs of the period 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 and other records of the petitioner in accordance with law. If the petitioner is found fit for promotion, his promotion shall relate back to the date of promotion of his immediate junior. Though the same shall be on notional basis till the date when the petitioner was actually promoted as a Commandant, however, the petitioner shall be given actual and consequential benefits. The respondent shall accordingly carry out the aforesaid exercise within a period of eight weeks from today. 34.The principles emerging from Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Guriqbal Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2353 are that where an ACR entry having a bearing on promotion was not communicated to the employee and is subsequently upgraded upon representation, such upgradation cannot be rendered ineffective merely because the original DPC has already been held. In such circumstances, the employee is entitled to have his case reconsidered by a Review DPC with retrospective effect, and if, on consideration of the upgraded ACRs and other relevant service records, he is found fit, his promotion may relate back to the date on which his junior was promoted. However, the subsequent upgradation of ACR by itself does not confer an automatic right to promotion; the Review DPC is still required to undertake an 53 objective and comparative assessment of the candidates in accordance with the applicable promotion rules. 35.Applying the aforesaid principles in the case at hand, convening a review DPC seem sustainable in the eyes of law. The grievance of respondent T.R. Kunjam was not founded upon a mere subsequent change of his ACR at his own instance without any basis. His grievance with regard to non- communication and incorrect grading of his ACRs had already been brought before this Court in WPS No.3736/2018 and thereafter in WPS No.4612/2020. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the competent authorities considered his representations and ultimately upgraded the ACRs for the relevant period from "Very Good" to "Excellent". Thus, the subsequent correction of the ACRs was not an afterthought or a unilateral alteration made merely for the purpose of securing promotion, but was the consequence of consideration of his grievance by the competent authorities pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. 36. Once the competent authority had corrected and upgraded the ACRs pertaining to the period which was relevant for consideration by the DPC dated 10.01.2018, the said corrected service record could not be rendered meaningless merely on the ground that the original DPC had already been convened. If such a view is accepted, an employee whose ACR was subsequently found to have been incorrectly recorded or whose representation against an uncommunicated ACR was accepted would permanently lose the benefit of such correction merely because the DPC had taken place before the correction. Such an interpretation would defeat 54 the very purpose of permitting representation against an ACR and the consequential correction thereof. 37.The object of a Review DPC is precisely to cure such a situation. A Review DPC does not constitute a fresh selection process unrelated to the original DPC; rather, it is a mechanism to reconsider the case of an eligible employee in the light of the corrected or subsequently available material which ought to have been before the original DPC. The relevant date for determining the entitlement of the employee remains the date on which the original DPC was convened, while the service record, as validly corrected thereafter, is required to be placed before the Review DPC for the purpose of determining what the result of the original DPC would have been had the corrected record been available at that time. 38.In the present case, the subsequent upgradation of the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam had a direct bearing upon his eligibility for comparative assessment under Rule 7(9) of the 2003 Rules. The original DPC dated 10.01.2018 had considered the five preceding years' ACRs and had assessed respondent T.R. Kunjam on the basis of the then existing grading of "Very Good". Subsequently, the competent authority upgraded the relevant ACRs and thereby altered an important component of the service record which was required to be considered by the DPC. Therefore, the subsequent correction of the ACRs created a legitimate occasion for reconsideration of the assessment made by the original DPC. 39.It is also relevant that respondent T.R. Kunjam had not remained silent in respect of his ACRs. He had approached this Court at the earliest stage by 55 filing WPS No.3736/2018, wherein this Court directed the competent authority to consider his representation. When part of his grievance remained unresolved, he again approached this Court in WPS No.4612/2020 and obtained a further direction for consideration of his representation. The subsequent orders dated 14.05.2020 and 09.11.2021 were passed in consequence of the aforesaid proceedings. Therefore, the subsequent correction of the ACRs cannot be treated as a belated attempt solely intended to reopen a concluded promotion process. 40.The contention of the petitioner Suresh Singh Bhupal that the original DPC dated 10.01.2018 had attained finality and, therefore, could not be reopened merely because the ACRs of another candidate were subsequently upgraded, cannot be accepted in absolute terms. Finality of a DPC cannot operate to defeat a legitimate claim arising from a subsequent lawful correction of the very service record which was required to be considered by the DPC. If the corrected ACR is legally required to be taken into consideration, the only effective method of determining its impact upon the earlier promotional exercise is to place the matter before a Review DPC. 41.At the same time, it needs to be clarified that the Court is not holding that every subsequent alteration in an ACR would, as a matter of course, require reopening of every earlier DPC. The entitlement to a Review DPC would depend upon the nature of the correction, the period to which the ACR relates, the relevance of such ACR to the original DPC and the manner in which the correction was brought about. The present case stands on a different footing because the ACRs in question relate directly 56 to the five-year period which was considered by the original DPC, and the correction thereof was made by the competent authority after consideration of the employee's representations pursuant to directions issued by this Court. 42.Therefore, the convening of the Review DPC dated 10.06.2024 cannot, by itself, be held to be without jurisdiction or contrary to the applicable promotion rules. On the contrary, once the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam for the relevant period stood validly upgraded, the authorities were justified in examining whether such corrected ACRs would have altered the result of the DPC dated 10.01.2018. The Review DPC was thus a permissible and appropriate procedural mechanism for determining the consequential effect of the corrected ACRs. 43.However, the conclusion that the Review DPC was permissible does not conclude the controversy. 44.The next and more important question is whether the Review DPC, after taking the upgraded ACRs of T.R. Kunjam into consideration, was justified in passing an order of the nature of the impugned order dated 25.06.2024, whereby T.R. Kunjam was retrospectively promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.01.2018 and, as a consequence thereof, Suresh Singh Bhupal was retrospectively reverted from the post of Superintending Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer. 45. At this stage, it is necessary to bear in mind that the exercise undertaken by the Review DPC was not merely to examine whether the upgraded 57 ACRs of T.R. Kunjam had brought him within the prescribed benchmark. The requirement under Rule 7(9) of the 2003 Rules is that the Departmental Promotion Committee shall make a "relative/comparative assessment" of the merits of all public servants who are within the zone of consideration and thereafter make an overall grading of their merit on the basis of their service records. Therefore, the Review DPC was required to reconsider the comparative merit of all the candidates who were within the zone of consideration on the date of the original DPC, particularly Suresh Singh Bhupal, T.R. Kunjam and N.K. Lal, on the basis of the service record as it stood after lawful correction of the ACRs. 46.The expression "merit-cum-seniority" occurring in Rule 7 cannot be read to mean "seniority-cum-merit". The rule requires the DPC first to assess comparative merit and only where the candidates are found to be substantially or approximately equal in merit does seniority assume significance. This position is also apparent from the language of Rule 7(9), which provides that candidates having the same grading shall maintain their inter-se seniority in the feeder cadre. Thus, seniority operates as a determining factor only after the candidates fall within the same category of merit. 47.In the present case, the original DPC dated 10.01.2018 had undertaken an overall assessment of the candidates and had found Suresh Singh Bhupal to be in the Excellent category, whereas T.R. Kunjam and N.K. Lal were placed in the Very Good category. The only post available at that point of time was one post of Superintending Engineer. Consequently, Suresh 58 Singh Bhupal was recommended and was thereafter promoted vide order dated 15.01.2018. 48.Subsequent to the said DPC, the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam for the relevant period were upgraded from Very Good to Excellent by the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the Review DPC was undoubtedly entitled to reconsider the case of T.R. Kunjam. However, it was equally incumbent upon the Review DPC to reconsider the comparative merit of T.R. Kunjam vis-à-vis Suresh Singh Bhupal on the basis of the entire service record and not merely on the basis that both candidates had ultimately acquired the grading of Excellent. 49. The material placed before this Court indicates that the Review DPC dated 10.06.2024 did not proceed on the footing that the mere upgradation of the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam automatically conferred upon him a right to promotion. The Review DPC considered the service records and found that after taking the corrected ACRs into account, T.R. Kunjam was entitled to be recommended against the solitary vacancy of Superintending Engineer. 50.The aforesaid approach is consistent with the statutory scheme. Once the upgraded ACRs are treated as part of the valid service record of T.R. Kunjam for the relevant period, they cannot be ignored while undertaking the exercise contemplated by Rule 7. At the same time, the upgraded ACRs do not, by themselves, operate as an automatic order of promotion. The DPC continues to retain the duty to undertake comparative assessment of the candidates. The distinction is important because an 59 employee's entitlement is to fair consideration by the DPC and not to automatic promotion merely because an ACR has subsequently been upgraded. 51.In the present case, this Court finds that the Review DPC was convened for precisely the aforesaid limited purpose. The original DPC had considered T.R. Kunjam, but his relevant ACRs were subsequently corrected pursuant to proceedings initiated by him before this Court. The Review DPC therefore had jurisdiction to examine what the result of the original DPC would have been if the corrected ACRs had been available to it on 10.01.2018. 52.The contention of Suresh Singh Bhupal that the Review DPC could not have been convened after a lapse of several years, therefore, cannot be accepted. Delay by itself cannot defeat a right which arises as a consequence of lawful correction of an ACR, particularly when the employee concerned had already approached this Court in the year 2018 and thereafter again in the year 2020 and the correction of the ACRs was ultimately made pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. 53.However, the rights of Suresh Singh Bhupal also cannot be ignored merely because the Review DPC was otherwise permissible. The original promotion granted to him on 15.01.2018 was not obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts. On the date of the original DPC, he was considered eligible, his service record was taken into consideration and he was found fit for promotion against the only available vacancy. His promotion was consequently not an illegal or void appointment. 60 54.The subsequent review of the DPC has arisen only because the service record of another candidate, namely T.R. Kunjam, was subsequently corrected. Therefore, the consequences flowing from the Review DPC have to be worked out carefully so that the legitimate benefit accruing to T.R. Kunjam is protected without treating Suresh Singh Bhupal as if he had obtained his original promotion by any wrongful act. 55.It is well settled that retrospective promotion pursuant to a Review DPC is ordinarily intended to place the employee in the position in which he would have been had the error or omission in the original consideration not occurred. Such retrospective consideration, however, does not necessarily mean that every consequence flowing from the subsequent review has to be imposed upon an officer who had earlier been validly promoted and had discharged duties on the promotional post. 56.The distinction between retrospective promotion and retrospective reversion is therefore required to be maintained. T.R. Kunjam may be entitled to consideration for promotion from the date on which he would have been promoted had his corrected ACRs been before the original DPC. But the consequential effect upon Suresh Singh Bhupal has to be determined in accordance with law, keeping in view the fact that his original promotion was bona fide and was based upon a valid recommendation of the DPC existing at that point of time. 57.The respondents have contended that since there was only one post available, both T.R. Kunjam and Suresh Singh Bhupal could not have been promoted against the same vacancy. There can be no quarrel with 61 the proposition that one post cannot be occupied by two officers. However, this fact by itself does not answer the question as to how the consequential rights of the officer who had actually occupied the post for several years are to be protected while implementing the result of the Review DPC. 58.The Review DPC was required to determine the position which would have prevailed on 10.01.2018 after taking into consideration the corrected ACRs. If, on such comparative assessment, T.R. Kunjam was found entitled to the solitary post, the State was competent to grant him retrospective/notional promotion from the date from which his immediate junior or the officer who had obtained promotion against the relevant vacancy had been promoted. However, such exercise could not automatically justify treating the entire service rendered by Suresh Singh Bhupal on the promotional post for the intervening period as though it had never existed. 59.It is also significant that Suresh Singh Bhupal had actually discharged the duties of Superintending Engineer for a considerable period. His promotion was not pursuant to any interim order or provisional arrangement and there is no allegation that he had obtained the promotion by practising fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, while the seniority position may have to be reworked pursuant to the Review DPC, the monetary and service consequences of the retrospective exercise must be regulated so as to avoid an inequitable result. 60.The order dated 25.06.2024, however, proceeds on the basis that once T.R. Kunjam was granted retrospective promotion from 15.01.2018, 62 Suresh Singh Bhupal was required to be retrospectively demoted from the same date. The order does not demonstrate adequate consideration of the independent service consequences flowing from such retrospective demotion, nor does it disclose any reason as to why the period during which Suresh Singh Bhupal actually worked as Superintending Engineer should be treated as service rendered on the lower post for all purposes other than recovery of salary. 61.The principle of "No Work No Pay" cannot, by itself, furnish an answer to the issue. "No Work No Pay" is ordinarily attracted where an employee claims monetary benefits for a period during which he did not actually discharge duties. In the present case, Suresh Singh Bhupal did in fact discharge duties on the post of Superintending Engineer during the relevant period pursuant to a valid order of promotion. Therefore, the mere invocation of the expression "No Work No Pay" cannot retrospectively erase the service actually rendered by him on the promotional post. 62. At the same time, T.R. Kunjam cannot be denied the benefit of retrospective consideration merely because Suresh Singh Bhupal has worked on the post. The appropriate course is therefore to give effect to the result of the Review DPC for the purpose of determining the correct date of promotion, seniority and consequential service position of T.R. Kunjam, while protecting Suresh Singh Bhupal against recovery or punitive financial consequences for the period during which he actually worked on the promotional post pursuant to a lawful order Accordingly, the period from 15.01.2018 to 25.06.2024, during which Suresh Singh Bhupal rendered services on the promotional post, shall be duly recognized and 63 reflected in all service-related records by creating a supernumerary post of Superintending Engineer for the said period. 63.This approach would also be consistent with the principle that an employee should not suffer for an administrative mistake or for a subsequent correction of the service record of another employee when the employee himself was not responsible for the situation. The benefit flowing from the Review DPC and the protection against unjust consequences to the already promoted officer can operate simultaneously. 64.Having perused the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient basis to hold that the very convening of the Review DPC was without jurisdiction. The challenge to the Review DPC on that limited ground therefore fails. The subsequent upgradation of the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam, being pursuant to consideration of his representations and the orders passed by this Court, furnished a valid basis for reconsideration. 65.However, the consequential order dated 25.06.2024 requires interference to the limited extent that it retrospectively reverts Suresh Singh Bhupal from the post of Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer with effect from 15.01.2018 without adequately safeguarding the service and monetary consequences arising from the fact that he had actually discharged duties on the higher post pursuant to a valid promotion order. 66. It is made clear that this Court is not holding that Suresh Singh Bhupal has an indefeasible right to retain the promotional post contrary to the result of the Review DPC. Once the Review DPC, upon lawful reconsideration, has 64 found T.R. Kunjam entitled to promotion against the vacancy relatable to the DPC dated 10.01.2018, the consequential correction of inter-se seniority and promotional position is permissible. What is impermissible is to visit Suresh Singh Bhupal with consequences in the nature of punishment for an act for which he was not responsible. 67.Now, this Court would accordingly dispose of the reliefs claimed in each of the writ petitions in the facts and circumstances of the case in consonance with above findings. 68.WPS No.3640 of 2024 has been filed by Suresh Singh Bhupal seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the complete records with respect to the passing of the impugned order. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of 'MANDAMUS' and may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 69. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, the challenge to the very basis of the Review DPC cannot be accepted. The Review DPC was competent to reconsider the matter after the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam had been lawfully upgraded. The mere lapse of time did not render such exercise without jurisdiction. So far as merit in respect of Excellent grading awarded to TR Kunjam by the authority is concerned, it is found that upon due evaluation the grading of the ACR was corrected, as such, the contention that the grading was corrected without applying correct 65 evaluation can’t be accepted. The contention that reporting, receiving and accepting authority have given different grading without assigning reasons can’t be accepted at this stage as the grading of ACR of TR Kunjam is not specifically challenged. Further, the court cannot enter into meticulous examination of the grading assigned by the authorities as held in in the matter of Dev Dutt (supra). Moreover, while exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court does not convert judicial review into an appellate exercise involving a comparative assessment of merits. Interference is warranted where the decision-making process is vitiated by mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, non-application of mind, breach of governing norms, or denial of fair procedure. This judicial discipline, consistently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, requires that, although the merits of an evaluation ordinarily remain beyond the scope of judicial review, the recording and communication of an appraisal must nevertheless conform to the minimum standards of transparency, fairness, and procedural propriety. 70. At the same time, the consequential effect of the Review DPC upon Suresh Singh Bhupal cannot be permitted to operate in a manner which ignores the fact that the Suresh Singh Bhupal was promoted pursuant to the recommendation of the original DPC dated 10.01.2018 and had actually discharged the duties of Superintending Engineer for several years. There is neither any allegation nor any finding of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression on the part of Suresh Singh Bhupal. 71. Accordingly, WPS No.3640 of 2024 deserves to be partly allowed. The order dated 25.06.2024 is upheld to the extent it gives effect to the recommendation of the Review DPC in favour of T.R. Kunjam and 66 determines his entitlement to retrospective/notional promotion and consequential seniority in accordance with law. However, the said order by which Suresh Singh Bhupal was demoted to the post of Executive Engineer, shall stand modified to the extent it retrospectively treats the promotion of Suresh Singh Bhupal as if it had never existed and thereby visits him with adverse service or monetary consequences for the period during which he actually discharged duties as Superintending Engineer. The period from 15.01.2018 to 25.06.2024 during which Suresh Singh Bhupal actually discharged duties on the post of Superintending Engineer pursuant to the valid promotion order dated 15.01.2018 shall be duly recognized in his service record. The respondents shall, for this purpose, create a supernumerary post of Superintending Engineer for the aforesaid intervening period, without prejudice to the retrospective/notional promotion and consequential seniority of T.R. Kunjam. It is further directed that no recovery of salary or other monetary benefits already received by Suresh Singh Bhupal for the period during which he actually worked on the post of Superintending Engineer shall be effected merely on account of the subsequent review of the DPC. 72.It is, however, made clear that such protection shall not confer upon Suresh Singh Bhupal an indefeasible right to retain the substantive promotional position contrary to the result of the Review DPC. The inter-se seniority and substantive promotional position shall be regulated in accordance with the result of the Review DPC and the observations made in this judgment. 67 73.WPS No.3145 of 2024 has been filed by Suresh Singh Bhupal seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the complete records with respect to the matter. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of 'MANDAMUS' and may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated further & 07.06.2024 and the entire further proceeding of the meeting dated 10.06.2024 (Annexure P- 1). and/or That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondent not to pass any order adversely affecting the promotion and seniority of the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer as consequence of outcome of review D.P.C. dated 10.06.2024. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent department to interfere with the seniority of the petitioner. 10.4 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 74. WPS No.3145 of 2024 has been filed by Suresh Singh Bhupal challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 and the proceedings of the Review DPC dated 10.06.2024 and seeking a direction restraining the respondents from passing any order adversely affecting his promotion and seniority as a consequence of the Review DPC. 75.In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, the prayer for quashing the Review DPC proceedings cannot be accepted. The Review DPC was convened on a valid basis, namely, the subsequent lawful correction and 68 upgradation of the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam. The Review DPC was therefore not without jurisdiction. 76. Suresh Singh Bhupal was undoubtedly entitled to protection against unjust and punitive consequences arising merely because he had acted upon a valid promotion order. Such protection, however, does not extend to nullifying the lawful exercise of comparative assessment undertaken by the Review DPC. 77. Consequently, the prayer for quashing the order dated 07.06.2024 and the entire proceedings of the Review DPC dated 10.06.2024 is rejected. The prayer for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the result of the Review DPC is also rejected, subject to the safeguards granted to Suresh Singh Bhupal in WPS No.3640 of 2024 and recorded hereinabove. WPS No.3145 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid clarification and protection. 78.WPS No.3757 of 2023 has been filed by Suresh Singh Bhupal seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the complete records with respect to the matter. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased the quash the order dated 09.11.2021 Annexure P-1. and / or 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to uphold the DPC dated 10.01.2018 direct the respondents to maintain the seniority of the petitioner as per the DPC dated 10.01.2018. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the action of the respondents in initiatiating and proceeding 69 to reviewing the DPC dated 10.01.2018 with respect to Respondent No.3 and giving him benefit with retrospective effect is bad in law and illegal. 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent /State, not to conduct any Review DPC at the request of the Respondent No.3 for reviewing the DPC dated 10.01.2018. 10.6 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 79.In WPS No.3757 of 2023, Suresh Singh Bhupal has challenged the order dated 09.11.2021 and has sought, inter alia, maintenance of the DPC dated 10.01.2018, protection of his seniority, a declaration that the decision to review the said DPC at the instance of T.R. Kunjam is illegal, and a direction restraining the respondents from conducting any Review DPC. 80. The principal question raised in this petition has already been considered in detail. The subsequent upgradation of the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam constituted a legitimate basis for reconsideration of the earlier DPC. The Review DPC was not convened merely because T.R. Kunjam desired a second opportunity for promotion; rather, the reconsideration arose from correction of the very service record which had formed part of the basis of his original consideration. Once the competent authority had lawfully corrected the relevant ACRs pursuant to the proceedings initiated by T.R. Kunjam, it was necessary to examine the effect of such correction upon the original comparative assessment. Denial of such reconsideration would itself have resulted in an inequitable situation whereby the corrected 70 service record would remain without effect for the very promotional exercise in respect of which the correction had been made. 81. The prayer for maintaining the DPC dated 10.01.2018 as final and for restraining the respondents from conducting a Review DPC therefore cannot be granted. 82. However, the rights accrued to Suresh Singh Bhupal pursuant to the original DPC are not being ignored. As already held, his promotion was bona fide and was not procured by any wrongful act on his part. His actual service on the promotional post shall therefore receive the protection indicated hereinabove. 83. Accordingly, WPS No.3757 of 2023 is dismissed insofar as it seeks quashing of the proceedings for convening or conducting the Review DPC and insofar as it seeks a restraint against giving effect to the result thereof. Suresh Singh Bhupal shall, however, be entitled to the protection in respect of his actual service and monetary benefits as directed in WPS No.3640 of 2024. 84.WPS No.2566 of 2025 has been filed by Suresh Singh Bhupal seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the complete records with respect to the passing of the impugned order. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 18/10/2024 by which the petitioner has been given promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 21/12/2020 (ANNEXURE P/1). 71 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to given seniority to the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer pursuant to the earlier order dated 15/01/2018. 10.4 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner. which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 85. WPS No.2566 of 2025 has been filed by Suresh Singh Bhupal challenging the promotion order dated 18.10.2024 and seeking a direction for grant of seniority on the post of Superintending Engineer pursuant to the earlier order dated 15.01.2018. 86. The challenge made in this petition has to be examined in the light of the Review DPC and the subsequent orders passed pursuant thereto. Once the Review DPC has validly reconsidered the comparative merit of the candidates and has found T.R. Kunjam entitled to retrospective/notional promotion against the vacancy relatable to the DPC dated 10.01.2018, Suresh Singh Bhupal cannot claim, as an absolute right, substantive seniority over T.R. Kunjam merely on the basis of the original promotion order. 87. At the same time, Suresh Singh Bhupal is entitled to have the period during which he actually discharged duties as Superintending Engineer protected and duly reflected in the service records. Such protection is distinct from the question of substantive seniority and shall not be construed as conferring upon him a right to defeat the result of the Review DPC. 72 88. Accordingly, the prayer seeking restoration of the seniority of Suresh Singh Bhupal in a manner contrary to the result of the Review DPC cannot be granted. The promotion order dated 18.10.2024 shall operate subject to the findings and directions contained in this judgment and shall not result in recovery of any monetary benefits already received by Suresh Singh Bhupal for the period during which he actually discharged duties on the promotional post. 89. WPS No.2566 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The respondents shall suitably correct the service records while maintaining the protection granted to Suresh Singh Bhupal for the actual service rendered by him. 90.WPS No.1721 of 2025 has been filed by NK Lal seeking following reliefs:- I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ (s) /order(s)/ direction(s) and quash the impugned promotion order dated 18.10.2024 (ANNEXURE- P/2) of respondent no. 4, and the Further quash the promotion order dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure-P/1) of the respondent No.5, by declaring the both promotion orders are bad in law. II. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to convened the meeting of the review D.P.C. for firstly considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post from its due date strictly in according with law, and thereafter the state authority may consider the case of the private respondents. III. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue writ'/writs/order/orders/direction/directions/relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 73 91. Grievance of NK Lal so far as it relates to order dated 18.10.2024 is similar with that of Suresh Singh Bhupal who was demoted from Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer in view of the review DPC and final order thereof dated 25.06.2024. By order dated 18.10.2024, it appears that vide DPC dated 07.12.2020, NK lal was promoted from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer and after review DPC of DPC dated 07.12.2020 which was held on 16.08.2024, the authorities promoted Suresh Singh Bhupal from the post of Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer from 21.12.2020 and demoted NK Lal from the post of Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer and for the period i.e. 21.12.2020 (NK Lal was promoted to SE from EE on this date) till 18.10.2024, no recovery was ordered from him. 92. The order dated 18.10.2024 is upheld to the extent it gives effect to the recommendation of the Review DPC in favour of Suresh Singh Bhupal and determines his entitlement to retrospective/notional promotion and consequential seniority in accordance with law. However, the said order shall stand modified to the extent it retrospectively treats the promotion of NK lal as if it had never existed and thereby visits him with adverse service consequences for the period during which he actually discharged duties as Superintending Engineer. The period from 21.12.2020 to 18.10.2024 during which NK Lal actually discharged duties on the post of Superintending Engineer pursuant to the valid promotion order dated 21.12.2020 shall be duly recognized in his service record. The respondents shall, for this purpose, create a supernumerary post of 74 Superintending Engineer for the aforesaid intervening period, without prejudice to the retrospective/notional promotion and consequential seniority of Suresh Singh Bhupal. It is further directed that no recovery of salary or other monetary benefits already received by NK Lal for the period during which he actually worked on the post of Superintending Engineer shall be effected merely on account of the subsequent review of the DPC. 93.It is, however, made clear that such protection shall not confer upon NK Lal an indefeasible right to retain the substantive promotional position contrary to the result of the Review DPC. The inter-se seniority and substantive promotional position shall be regulated in accordance with the result of the Review DPC and the observations made in this judgment. 94. The prayer for directing the respondents to first convene another Review DPC exclusively for considering the claim of N.K. Lal before considering the cases of the other candidates also cannot be granted. Such a direction would amount to directing a fresh promotional exercise without any established legal basis and would interfere with the comparative assessment undertaken in accordance with the statutory scheme. 95. Accordingly, WPS No.1721 of 2025 is disposed of with aforesaid protection in favour of NK Lal. 96.WPS No.3184 of 2024 has been filed by NK Lal seeking following reliefs:- I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ (s) /order(s)/ direction(s) and quash the letter dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure-P/9) and further quash the entire proceeding of the DPC dated 10.01.2018 by which the respondent authority allowed the private 75 respondent to superseded the petitioner and promoted then as Superintend Engineer. II. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ and hold the adverse remark made by the then principal secretary in the ACR of 2009 & 2010 are bad in the eyes of law and further direct the respondent authority to considered the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Superintendent Engineer w.e.f. 10.01.2011 along with all the consequential benefits. III. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please also direct the respondent no.1 to place the petitioner at S. No. 1 in the seniority of the Superintendent Engineer and given all the consequential benefit to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. IV. The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue writ/writs / order / orders/direction/directions/ relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 97.WPS No.3184 of 2024 has been filed by N.K. Lal seeking quashing of the letter dated 20.10.2022 and the proceedings of the DPC dated 10.01.2018, as also a declaration that the adverse remarks made by the then Principal Secretary in his ACRs for the years 2009 and 2010 were illegal, with a consequential direction for consideration of his promotion from 10.01.2011 and fixation of his seniority accordingly. 98. NK Lal seeks, in substance, to reopen the original promotional assessment and to secure retrospective promotion on the basis of the alleged invalidity of the adverse remarks in his ACRs. The principle governing promotion under Rule 7 of the 2003 Rules requires an assessment of comparative merit on the basis of the service record available for consideration. A 76 candidate cannot claim promotion merely on the ground of seniority when the applicable rule requires assessment of comparative merit. 99.In the present case, the original DPC dated 10.01.2018 had considered the service records of the candidates falling within the zone of consideration and had graded Suresh Singh Bhupal as Excellent and N.K. Lal as Very Good. The subsequent Review DPC was occasioned by the specific and lawful correction of the ACRs of T.R. Kunjam. The said exercise does not, by itself, establish any illegality in the assessment of N.K. Lal or confer upon him a right to reopen the entire DPC. 100.The prayer for retrospective promotion from 10.01.2011 and consequential fixation of seniority cannot, therefore, be granted in the present proceedings merely on the basis of the challenge to the original DPC. The petitioner has not demonstrated any legal basis on which the result of the original DPC can be substituted by a direction of this Court granting him retrospective promotion from the claimed date. 101. So far as the challenge to the adverse remarks in the ACRs for the years 2009 and 2010 is concerned, the same also cannot result in an automatic direction for promotion. Even assuming that the service record requires correction in accordance with law, the consequence thereof would ordinarily be reconsideration by the competent authority/DPC and not a judicial direction granting promotion as a matter of course. 102.Accordingly, WPS No.3184 of 2024 is disposed of, subject, however, to the observation that if the petitioner has any surviving statutory remedy against the adverse entries in his ACRs, or if any competent authority is 77 otherwise required by law to reconsider the same, such remedy shall remain unaffected by this judgment. 103.With the aforesaid observations/directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 13.07.2026 13.08.2026 ------ 14.08.2026