Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the impugned promotion order dated 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:- “(i)That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction set aside the impugned promotion order dated 07.03.2024 promoting Shri Ram Singh Markam junior to the petitioner, leaving the petitioner - seniority without any valid reason and against the services condition rule of the department (Annexure P/1) and; (ii)That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction set aside the impugned Department Promotion Committee proceeding dated 05.02.2024 the DPC recommended the promotion of Shri Ramsingh Markam, who is junior to the petitioner, to the post of Section Officer. This decision lacks any discernible reason. Despite the petitioner's seniority and qualifications, Shri Ram Singh Markam was unjustly and arbitrarily promoted, while the petitioner was superseded on uncommunicated tip. (Annexure P/2) (iii)That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction to respondent conduct the review DPC for the post of Section Officer and consider the petitioner candidature according to services condition rule of the department and communicated ACR of the Petitioner and; (iv)That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction to respondent authority to decided the representation dated 07.06.2024, urging the authorities to reconsider her candidature and grant her rightful promotion over Shri Ram Singh Markam in time bound period (Annexure P/5) and; (v)This Hon'ble Court may direct the Review Departmental Promotion Committee not to consider/rely upon the adverse remark/tip of whatsoever nature included in the Annual Confidential Report of the Petitioner while considering the candidature for promotion to the next higher post; and (vi). That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or any other appropriate writ direction to expunge of uncommunicated adverse remark/Tip in the ACR or not acted upon in future i.e. ^ dk;Z esa v:fp vkSj dk;kZy; esa okrkoj.k nwf”kr djus dh izo~fRr^^ (vii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The case as projected by the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Typist vide order dated 5/05/2006 in the office of Advocate General and subsequently she was promoted vide order dated 7/08/2014 as Assistant Grade-II. Thereafter, vide order dated 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 dated 1/04/2023. A DPC was convened for promotion of two vacant seats of Section 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 seniority- cum-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. 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 Section 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis for non-promotion is due to adverse remarks in the ACR which has never been communicated to the petitioner. If the adverse remark in the ACR would have been communicated to her, she would have given explanation for the same and she would have improved her conduct, however without giving a chance to improve, the adverse remark has been passed against her, she has been deprived for promotion only on the basis of said uncommunicated adverse remark which is required to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjaj reported in (1979) 2 SCC 368 , judgment in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 and judgment in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that since the ACR of the petitioner was not found worthy, as such, she was rightly not been considered at par with respondent No.4 though respondent No.4 was junior to the petitioner, however since she was not found fit in the ACR, as such, she was not considered because the promotion Rules itself goes to show that the criteria for promotion would be seniority-cum-merit. Since the petitioner on merits was not found fit, therefore she has rightly not been considered for promotion at par with respondent No.4. There is no illegality as such in the order, the petition sans merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the records annexed with the petition. From perusal of the documents filed along with the petition as well as from the arguments advanced by the parties, it is apparent that only reason for not considering the petitioner for promotion is due to adverse remarks recorded in her ACR, however it is also not disputed that the said adverse remarks recorded in her ACR have never been communicated to her, as such the petitioner was not aware about the adverse remarks passed against her. Had it been a case where the petitioner would have been informed about her adverse remarks, she would have filed an application clarifying her position and she would had a chance to improve herself, however since the adverse remarks were not communicated to her, therefore she was not in a position to clarify and improve the same. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was senior to respondent No.4. There is a circular dated 29/11/1984 of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh by which it has been categorically directed to the State/authorities to inform the entry regarding adverse remarks passed against employee and to seek representation in respect of the adverse remark entered in the ACR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decision has held that no action can be taken on the uncommunicated ACR. 7. In the matter of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (supra) it has been held as under:- “...8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt [ Dev Dutt v. Union of India , (2008) 8 SCC 725 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] 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. 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...” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 640 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 have been relief 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 relief 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.” 9. Since adverse remarks have not been communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months in terms of circular dated 29/11/1984, as such, it has lost its efficacy and hence would not have been relied upon by the DPC to deny promotion to the petitioner. The employee is entitled for promotion and the employer/State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employee as the case may be as it is often said that the State must be a model employer. The employee is entitled for promotion and the employer/State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employee as the case may be as it is often said that the State must be a model employer. Accordingly, in my opinion, the petitioner has make out a case for consideration of her promotion at par with the respondent No.4 while ignoring the uncommunicated adverse remarks issued against her as it has not been communicated to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was having no opportunity to file a representation to clarify her position and to improve the same. 10. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The respondent/authorities are directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion while ignoring adverse remark issued against her as it was never been communicated to her. The respondent/authorities are directed to consider the case of the promotion of the petitioner at par with respondent No.4 within a period of three months.