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 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 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