1 / 10 2026:CGHC:19738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 21.04.2026 Order Delivered on 29.04.2026 Order Uploaded on 29.04.2026 WPS No. 12628 of 2025 Dr. Smt. Sunanda Maravi W/o Shri Manoj Markam Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Professor (Hindi) Government E. Raghvendra Rao Postgraduate Science College, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Higher Education Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner, Higher Education Department, Block-3, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Principal Government, E. Raghvendra Rao Postgraduate Science College, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Love Sharma, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.04.29 17:35:20 +0530 2 / 10 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the communication/order dated 28th July 2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent authority by which her representation for inclusion of her name in the list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Professor has been rejected on the ground that petitioner failed to secure the minimum benchmark of 13 marks in the evaluation of her ACRs. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor (Hindi) with respondent No.3/College on 14.12.1996. She successfully completed her Ph.D. in the year 2003 and thereafter she was awarded senior pay-scale and then selection grade pay scale. On completion of three years on selection grade pay- scale, petitioner was granted academic grade-pay of Rs.9000/- since 14.12.2010. Petitioner fulfilled all the requisite eligibility criteria prescribed for promotion to the post of Professor. When the petitioner was in the zone of consideration of her promotion to the post of Professor, surprisingly, she received communication dated 18.02.2025 by the respondent -Department wherein it was informed to her that Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the year 2011 contained adverse remarks and petitioner was directed to submit her representation along with relevant documents to which petitioner replied on 21st February 2025 pleading therein different grounds including the crucial ground that she was never communicated about adverse entry made in her ACR for the relevant period. However, respondent authorities ignoring 3 / 10 representation of the petitioner, issued promotion order dated 29th May 2025 excluding the name of petitioner. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that adverse ACR had not been communicated to the petitioner and as such she was not aware about the adverse remarks entered in her ACR. Communication dated 18.02.2025 made to petitioner informing her about adverse grading in the year 2011 i.e. after lapse of 14 years is clearly an empty formality. She was never given any opportunity to file representation against her adverse ACR. Since she was not considered for promotion only on the basis of un-communicated ACR, the entire proceeding adopted by the authorities for not considering her name for promotion by the DPC is against the settled law. Non-communication of adverse ACR deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to represent against the same. Relying upon the Circular dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) issued by the State Govt., learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is made mandatory for all concerned authorities/departments to ensure communication of every entry made in the ACR of employee within time. Reasons assigned for denying consideration in respect of case of the petitioner for grant of promotion is unwarranted. Consequently, the grounds raised by the respondents to justify the non-consideration of petitioner's case for promotion does not appear to be just, reasonable and proper. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Dr. Smt. Veena Tripathi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS 7053 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2023). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the 4 / 10 DPC, after due evaluation and consideration of ACR of petitioner and other candidates for the last 5 years commencing from 2008 to 2012 recommended the name of eligible candidates for promotion whereas petitioner has been found unfit for promotion as the evaluation of the marks of ACR of petitioner is not up to the benchmark as she had failed to secure minimum 13 marks. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in not considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has had a long and unblemished service career, having been initially appointed in the year 1996. It is further undisputed that she acquired the requisite eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Professor. It is also an admitted position that no departmental enquiry or criminal case was pending against her at the relevant time when, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered her candidature for promotion. Date of communication made to petitioner of adverse entry recorded in his ACR for relevant period is also not disputed by learned counsel for respondent/State i.e. in the year 2025. 6. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with writ petition revealed that the petitioner was informed for the first time on 18.02.2025 about an adverse remark in her ACR for the year 2011. The said communication was issued long after the relevant period and at the stage when her case for promotion was under consideration. Prior to 5 / 10 this, no adverse entry or below-benchmark grading had ever been communicated to her, nor was she afforded any opportunity to represent against the same. It is also pleaded by petitioner that after receipt of the communication dated 18.02.2025, she submitted representation on 21.02.2025 which remained undecided. 7. The law relating to consideration of uncommunicated ACRs for promotion or upgradation is no longer res integra. It is well settled that non-communication of ACR entries which have civil consequences are not to be considered. An employee must be made aware of any entry that may adversely impact career progression so as to enable him/her to improve performance or challenge the entry. Denial of such opportunity is violative of principles of natural justice. 8. In case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “17. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non- communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence non- communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court 6 / 10 in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.” 9. In case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR – poor, fair, average, good or very good – must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 640, relying upon its earlier decision in case of Sukhdev Singh (supra), held as under: “1. The sole issue involved in this appeal is whether the uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRS), which are adverse to the appellant, should 7 / 10 have been relied upon for the purpose of consideration of the appellant for promotion. 2. In view of the decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India (2013) 9 SCC 566, there cannot be any dispute on this aspect. This Court has settled the law that uncommunicated and adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon in the process. 3. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside with the following directions: (a) the competent authority is directed to ignore the uncommunicated adverse ACRs and take a fresh decision in accordance with law (b) The appellant shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the process." 11. In case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. G.R. Meghwal reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1291, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that uncommunicated, downgraded Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) cannot be used to deny promotions. The judgment reiterates that all performance ratings (good, very good, etc.) must be communicated to the employee. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the matter of R.K. Jibanlata Devi Vs. High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General and Ors. reported in 2023 Live-law (SC) 139 has held in para 6.4 and 6.7 as under: “6.4 In the present case the petitioner got “Good” gradings for the year 2016-17 and received “Very Good” gradings in her ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 8 / 10 2018-2019. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner which has not been denied that the ACRs grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was never communicated to the petitioner even till the DPC met. Therefore, as per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions more particularly, as observed and held by this Court in Rukhsana Shaheen Khan (supra); Sukhdev Singh (supra) and Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors, (2008) 8 SCC 725 uncommunicated adverse ACRs may be even with “Good” entry which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion. 6.7 The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that as the ACR Grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was not communicated till the DPC met, the same is to be ignored and/ or be not relied upon for consideration of promotion. Similarly, the grading for the year 2019-2020 also is to be excluded and/or be not relied upon for consideration for promotion as the same was communicated on 08.04.2021 and the petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to make representation and before the representation could be made the DPC met on 09.04.2021 and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion.” 13. In the present case, the petitioner was not promoted on the ground that she did not secure the minimum benchmark of 13 marks for the period 2008 to 2012. However, admittedly, ACR’s were never communicated to her in time. The communication made in the year 2025 with respect to adverse ACR for the year 2011 is clearly belated and it deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to make a representation at the relevant time. The very purpose of maintaining and sharing ACRs is to ensure 9 / 10 transparency, fairness, and professional development by informing an employee of their performance evaluation. When such a report is withheld for an extended period, it undermines principles of natural justice. The belated communication of the adverse ACR defeats the very purpose of communication. Uncommunicated below benchmark ACRs cannot be looked into by the DPC while making assessment of an officer for promotion to the higher grade. The petitioner, in the present case, was deprived of such an opportunity at the relevant time. Further, it is evident that the petitioner’s non-consideration for promotion is directly linked to the ACR gradings falling below the prescribed benchmark. Once such gradings are founded upon entries which were not communicated in time, the entire process of evaluation stands vitiated. Consequently, the action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner unfit for promotion on the basis of such uncommunicated adverse ACR is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to settled principles of law. In the facts of case, DPC should have ignored the adverse uncommunicated ACR. 14. For the foregoing discussions and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner on the basis of uncommunicated ACR having adverse remark is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, and unsustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned communicated dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) is quashed. Respondents are directed to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (Review DPC) 10 / 10 to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor, by ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs with adverse entries. 16. In the event the petitioner is found fit for promotion by the Review DPC recommends her name, she shall be granted promotion from the date her immediate junior was promoted, with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and fixation of pay. However, she will not be entitled for arrears of salary. 17. The entire exercise, as directed above, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen