1 CGHC010339492026 2026:CGHC:43652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6515 of 2026 Deepak Kosre S/o Brijlal Kosre Aged About 55 Years Working As Deputy Director (Geology) Department Of Mineral Resources Regional Office Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Mineral Resources Department Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Geology And Mining Mineral Resources Department Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary North Block- Sector - 19 Nava Raipur- Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For Resp/State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhaya, Addl. Advocate General For Resp. No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 08/10/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 07.05.2026, RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.10.09 10:54:51 +0530 2 whereby his representation dated 17.03.2026 relating to completion of entries in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) has been rejected by invoking Clause 13(एक) of Part-I, Serial No.7 of the General Book Circular dated 16.12.2010. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not seeking expunction of any adverse remark or upgradation of his ACR grading. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been awarded “Outstanding/ उत्क ष्ट (क+)” grading in the relevant ACRs, however, the column containing the basis/reasons for such grading has remained blank. The representation submitted by the petitioner was, therefore, for completion of the relevant entry and not against any adverse remark. Learned counsel further submits that Clause 13(एक) specifically relates to representation against adverse remarks and prescribes the period for submitting such representation. It is contended that, in the present case, there is no adverse remark against the petitioner and, therefore, the said provision could not have been applied mechanically to reject his representation on the ground of delay. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s case was considered by the DPC, but the aforesaid “Outstanding/ उत्क ष्ट (क+)” grading for the relevant years was not taken into consideration on account of the corresponding remarks column having remained blank, thereby affecting his consideration for promotion. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that if the petitioner submits a fresh representation before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 3 available on record. 5. A perusal of Clause 13(एक) shows that the said provision relates to a representation against adverse remarks/adverse entries recorded in the confidential report and prescribes the period within which such representation is to be submitted. 6. In the present case, the grievance projected by the petitioner appears to be of a different nature. The petitioner asserts that “Outstanding/ उत्क ष्ट (क+)” grading had already been awarded in the relevant ACRs, but the corresponding column containing the basis/reasons for such grading was left blank. Thus, the petitioner is not questioning any adverse remark or adverse grading; rather, his grievance is with regard to an alleged omission in the ACR which, according to him, has resulted in the said grading not being taken into consideration by the DPC. In these circumstances, the representation of the petitioner ought to have been considered keeping in view the nature of the grievance raised by him. Rejection of the representation merely by applying the period prescribed under Clause 13(एक), without examining whether the said provision was applicable to the grievance of the petitioner, does not appear to be appropriate. 7. A perusal of Annexure-P/3 and P/4 further indicates that the petitioner has been awarded the grading “ उत्क ष्ट (क+)” in the relevant ACRs. However, the column requiring the basis for such grading, including the exceptional qualities and performance warranting the said grading, has remained unfilled. Thus, while the grading of “ उत्क ष्ट (क+)” is reflected in the ACRs, the corresponding remarks/basis for such grading have not been recorded. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation 4 before the competent authority raising all his grievance along with a copy of this order and the relevant documents. In the event such representation is submitted, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, particularly keeping in view the petitioner’s contention regarding the applicability of Clause 13(एक), the already recorded “Outstanding/ उत्क ष्ट (क+)” grading, and the alleged omission in recording the corresponding remarks. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the fresh representation and take necessary steps to complete the entries in his Annual Confidential Report (Annexure-P/3 & P/4) 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul