Cbger . IN Tm HIGH CGURT or JUDICATURE AT BILAsPUR(C1{gATTI'sGARH) mam PETITION N‘d, $2.7 ”(3F 260‘ V/ / // x PETITxoNER : ,E‘orilal ,sharma, .sgn e£ Alate v / shri‘MadanLal Shanna. aged about“ r ‘51years. Oceeupation~stenographer.< Dis triat Office ,Mahasamund, Resident of Mahasamand. District- Mahasamund,(c.<;.) VERSUS : 1.7 statga 9f Chh§ttisgarh, through Secretary, Re vemue Departmnt ,Raipur ,(C. G.) / V \ ¥ f ‘\:/ 2. state of: Madhya Pradesh, thrcugh /' Secretary, ‘ , a Revanue Department.Bh0pal.(i§i.P.) 3. Collector, Mahasamuné. District-Mahasamund , (C.G.) / WRIT 9ETIT$<3N UNDER aaTICLEs 225/227 o’E/i‘hE ‘ u/i ¢ ,/ CoNSTI’'Tirriér'i OF ‘INDQ. ‘ s f‘ ’ é v ‘ ’ gMf HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 627 OF 2003 PETITIONER Hornal Sharma Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J‘ Present :- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ,5; ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 30th day of March, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Nayab Tahsildar in the year 1987 by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "DPC") on the basis of preceding 5 years Annual Confidential Reports (for short “ACRs”). The petitioner was graded ‘C’ in the year 1982 and thereafter, the petitioner has obtained throughout +A, +A. A, +A up to the ye'ar 1986. Since the . t petitioner was graded in the year ending on 31-3-1982 as ‘C’, he was awarded 90 marks and could nottbe recommended for promotion of the post of Nayab'Tahsildar. 2. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the Collector, Mahasamund. The Collector, Mahasamund by order dated 26-12-2000 (Annexure — P/3) after having considered all the as}. \cts of the matter came to the conclusion that the remarks made in the service book of the petitioner'for the year ending 31—3-1982 was made by Tahsildar, who was not competent to made any remark in the ACR of the petitioner. The petitioner was working as Steno-Typist, the competent officer in recording the Li k. §§¢Kmh 4‘: I £ ‘ Afj, ACR of the petitioner was the Sub Divisional Officer and, as such, it was held by the Coliector that the remark ‘C’ in the year ending on- 31—3-1982 was no ACR. Thus, the petitioner couid be considered as on that date when the other similarly situated candidates were considered and were recommended for promotion. 3. To buttress his contention learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev and Others‘ and Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Othersz. ‘4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is a delay in filing this petition, which is unexplained. Thus, this petition should not be entertained at this stage on any grounds, including marks awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the i case of the petitioner cannot be considered for grant of appointment on the post of Nayab Tahsildar as on that date. i have heard learned counsel for the patties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The contention of the State that the petitioner has agitated the issue after a period of about 13 years without any satisfactory explanation is noticed to be rejected on the simple ground that there was delay in making representation, if any, the Collector 13 , ought to have considered the delay aspect and pass the appropriate order. The Collector, it appears, has condoned the delay and considered the case of the petitioner on merit. The Collector ultimately came to the conclusion that remark ‘C’ made in the service book of the petitioner on the year ending 31—3-1982 be 1AIR 1988 so 1069 2 (2008) 8 scc 725 N0 treated as no remark, as the same was made by the Tahsildar, who was not competent. The competent officer for recording ACR was Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on the basis of the order dated 26—1 2—2000. Once it has been held by the Collector that that the remark made in the ACR of the petitioner was no remark, as the same was not made by the competent» officer, the petitioner is entitled to consideration as on that day after removing remark ‘C' against the year ending on 31-3—1982. Learned counsei appearing for the State submits that since the petitioner has not worked on the post of Nayab Tahsildar he may not be entitled to any benefit even if he has been found fit in consideration for appointment/promotion on the said post. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is found fit for appointment/promotion, the petitioner may be granted at least notional benefits. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case Of the petitioner as on 1987 when the case of other similarly situated persons was considered for grant of promotion to the post of Nayab Tahsildar, ln the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. ‘ Sci/- yw/‘ sa’i‘h K- Agnihom' \1 Judge GoWri \sT, r. \