BELA MANIKPURI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the impugned promotion order dtd. 7/03/2024 by which the respondent No.4 who happens to be junior to the petitioner has been promoted leaving the petitioner. The Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended the name of the respondent No.4 despite the fact that the petitioner is senior and qualified. The petitioner is further praying to expunge the uncommunicated adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR).

(2.) The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

(3.) The case as projected by the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Typist vide order dtd. 5/05/2006 in the office of Advocate General and subsequently she was promoted vide order dtd. 7/08/2014 as Assistant Grade-II. Thereafter, vide order dtd. 13/11/2019 she was further promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I. The respondent No.4 was also appointed as Typist and he was placed below the petitioner. The petitioner was senior in the gradation list dtd. 1/04/2023. A DPC was convened for promotion of two vacant seats of Sec. Officer from the feeder cadre of Assistant Grade-I. The name of the petitioner was within the zone of consideration. She was ranked at serial number-3. The respondent No.4 was placed at serial number -4. The DPC was convened on 5/02/2024 and after evaluating candidature of the respective parties and after following the Chhattisgarh Law and Legislative Department (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 as well as Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 which is based upon senioritycum-merit/fitness and further while considering the ACR's for the past five years, promoted the respondent No.4 and the petitioner was not promoted for the said post stating that the ACR of the petitioner is not found to be worthy and it was stated in the ACR of the petitioner and one Vijay Surjuse that they are not interested in official work and they are further found involved in the activity of polluting the office environment. Accordingly, the petitioner was not considered. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the said finding recorded in the ACR has never been communicated to the petitioner, as such, she was not aware about the adverse remarks entered in her ACR. She was never been communicated and was not given any chance to file representation and to improve the so called allegation levelled against her in the ACR. Since she was not considered for promotion only on the basis of uncommunicated ACR, as such, the entire proceeding adopted by the authorities for not considering her name for promotion by the DPC is against the settled law by which uncommunicated ACR cannot be taken into consideration. It has been categorically held by the Supreme Court as well as by the High Court that uncommunicated ACR cannot be taken into consideration while acting upon the same. As such, such ACR is not required to be taken into consideration and as such the impugned promotion order by which the respondent No.4 has been promoted to the post of Sec. Officer is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is required to be communicated the ACR and the entire proceeding of the DPC is also required to be turned down.