1 CGHC010278452022 2026:CGHC:38985-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 504 of 2022 Satish Sharma S/o Late Shri Surendra Sharma Aged About 35 Years Ex-Assistant Project Officer (Contract), R/o Dmq - 10, Gurudwara Road, Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, Police Station Vishrampur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Council (Manrega), Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) Sector - 19, Krishi Vikas Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.09.03 15:59:02 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4387/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who was engaged on contractual employment as an Assistant Project Officer under the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, has challenged the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by respondent No.1, Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, whereby his contractual engagement was discontinued and the extension of his contractual service was declined. According to the appellant, the impugned action is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice as his services were not extended allegedly on the basis of adverse remarks in his ACR/PAR, which were never communicated to him, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to make a representation against such remarks. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent authorities alleged that his work during the financial year 2016-2017 was not satisfactory and relied upon adverse 3 entries for discontinuing his contractual engagement, whereas, according to the appellant, no such adverse entry was ever communicated or made known to him. The appellant had earlier challenged the action of the respondent authorities by filing W.P. (S) No.4937/2018, which was disposed of on 21.08.2018 with liberty/direction to avail the remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority. Pursuant thereto, the appellant preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which came to be decided on 22.12.2018. The appellant thereafter again approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.4387/2019 challenging the alleged arbitrary action of the respondent authorities, which was disposed of by order dated 15.07.2022. The appellant, therefore, contends that the discontinuance/non-extension of his contractual employment on the basis of uncommunicated adverse ACR/PAR remarks and without affording him a fair opportunity of hearing or conducting any proper enquiry is contrary to the applicable rules and circulars, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not appreciating the matter in its correct perspective and in failing to consider that the appellant had rendered continuous and satisfactory service for more than six years as Assistant Project Officer (Contract). It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.07.2013 issued by 4 the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, for appointment on various posts, the appellant applied for the post of Assistant Project Officer (Contract) under the MNREGA Scheme and, upon being duly selected, was appointed on 13.09.2013. From the date of his appointment till the passing of the impugned order dated 03.04.2019, the appellant continuously discharged his duties for about six years and, according to the appellant, there was no adverse remark whatsoever regarding his performance or conduct during the said period. However, despite his long and satisfactory service, the respondent authorities declined to extend his contractual engagement and discontinued his services without properly considering his work efficiency and service record. Learned counsel would further contend that the appellant was appointed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004, and the action of the respondent authorities in relying upon alleged adverse entries in his ACR/PAR was without authority of law and contrary to the applicable rules and procedure. It is contended that, towards the end of his service tenure, certain adverse or downgraded remarks were allegedly recorded in his service particulars, which were never communicated to him, and the impugned action was taken without affording him any fair opportunity of hearing or an opportunity to represent against such remarks. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, learned counsel would submit that every entry in the 5 ACR/PAR, whether poor, fair, average, good or very good, which may adversely affect the employee’s service prospects, is required to be communicated within a reasonable period so as to enable the employee to make an effective representation. It is further submitted that the action of the authorities is violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias and the principle of audi alteram partem, and that the requirement of fairness and reasoned decision-making forms an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would also refer to the State Government circular dated 24.12.2012 prescribing the procedure for recording ACR/PAR and the order dated 03.06.2015 regarding the competent/authorized officers empowered to record confidential reports, and submit that the prescribed procedure and fair practice were not followed in the appellant’s case and that the alleged adverse remarks could not have been recorded on the basis of hearsay complaints or extraneous considerations. It is, therefore, contended that the discontinuance/non-extension of the appellant’s contractual engagement is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the binding law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and that the learned Single Judge ought to have properly appreciated these facts and allowed the petition/application of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellant in the 6 present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Project Officer on contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Collector (DRDA), Surajpur, and the appointment order dated 13.09.2013, which clearly stipulated that the engagement was contractual for a fixed period and its continuation or extension was subject to the terms and conditions of appointment and assessment through the confidential report/ACR/PAR. It is submitted that the appellant’s contractual engagement was extended from time to time, but ultimately the same came to an end and was not further extended on the basis of the relevant assessment and service record. Learned counsel would further submit that the appellant had unsuccessfully pursued the remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, MGNREGA, which was rejected by order dated 22.12.2018, and thereafter challenged the orders dated 03.04.2019 and 22.12.2018 by filing W.P.(S) No.4387/2019. It is contended that the learned Single Judge, while taking note of the issue regarding non-communication of the adverse ACR/PAR, has already protected the appellant’s interest by observing that such uncommunicated adverse entries shall not come in his way in the event he applies for any future contractual 7 appointment or any appointment under the State or its agencies/instrumentalities. It is, therefore, submitted that since the contractual period of the appellant had already expired and his engagement was not extended in accordance with the terms and conditions governing his appointment, he cannot claim continuation or further extension as a matter of right. Learned counsel would contend that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just, proper and well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference in the present writ appeal, which is devoid of merit and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, recorded that the appellants had been appointed pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2013 for a contractual period of three years, which had already expired. It was further observed that the contractual engagement of the appellants had not been extended on account of the allegations and adverse ACRs recorded against them. The learned Single Judge, however, taking note of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the requirement and procedure for communication of ACR entries, held that the said procedure had not been complied with and, consequently, the 8 uncommunicated adverse ACRs had lost their significance. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the contractual period had already come to an end, the writ petitions were disposed of with the observation that, in the event the appellants applied for any contractual appointment in future, the adverse ACRs which had not been communicated to them would not come in their way for consideration of their candidature for contractual appointment or any other appointment under the State agencies/instrumentalities. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet