SATISH SHARMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010278452022 2026:CGHC:38985-DB
NAFR
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed by
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.09.03
15:59:02 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 504 of 2022
Satish Sharma S/o Late Shri Surendra Sharma Aged About 35 Years
Ex-Assistant Project Officer (Contract), R/o Dmq - 10, Gurudwara Road,
Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, Police Station Vishrampur, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat
And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Council (Manrega), Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) Sector -
19, Krishi Vikas Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Collector, Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.)
4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judge ,
Judgment on Board

2
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
03.09.2026
Heard Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
1.
heard Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for
respondent/State.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)
No. 4387/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner
/ appellant herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who was engaged on
3.
contractual employment as an Assistant Project Officer under the
Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, has
challenged the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by respondent
No.1, Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural
Development, whereby his contractual engagement was
discontinued and the extension of his contractual service was
declined. According to the appellant, the impugned action is
arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice as
his services were not extended allegedly on the basis of adverse
remarks in his ACR/PAR, which were never communicated to him,
thereby depriving him of an opportunity to make a representation
against such remarks. It is the case of the appellant that the
respondent authorities alleged that his work during the financial
year 2016-2017 was not satisfactory and relied upon adverse

3
entries for discontinuing his contractual engagement, whereas,
according to the appellant, no such adverse entry was ever
communicated or made known to him. The appellant had earlier
challenged the action of the respondent authorities by filing W.P.
(S) No.4937/2018, which was disposed of on 21.08.2018 with
liberty/direction to avail the remedy of appeal before the
competent appellate authority. Pursuant thereto, the appellant
preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which came to be
decided on 22.12.2018. The appellant thereafter again
approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.4387/2019 challenging
the alleged arbitrary action of the respondent authorities, which
was disposed of by order dated 15.07.2022. The appellant,
therefore, contends that the discontinuance/non-extension of his
contractual employment on the basis of uncommunicated adverse
ACR/PAR remarks and without affording him a fair opportunity of
hearing or conducting any proper enquiry is contrary to the
applicable rules and circulars, violative of the principles of natural
justice and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned
Single Judge has erred in law in not appreciating the matter in its
correct perspective and in failing to consider that the appellant
had rendered continuous and satisfactory service for more than
six years as Assistant Project Officer (Contract). It is submitted
that pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.07.2013 issued by

4
the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Surajpur, for
appointment on various posts, the appellant applied for the post of
Assistant Project Officer (Contract) under the MNREGA Scheme
and, upon being duly selected, was appointed on 13.09.2013.
From the date of his appointment till the passing of the impugned
order dated 03.04.2019, the appellant continuously discharged his
duties for about six years and, according to the appellant, there
was no adverse remark whatsoever regarding his performance or
conduct during the said period. However, despite his long and
satisfactory service, the respondent authorities declined to extend
his contractual engagement and discontinued his services without
properly considering his work efficiency and service record.
Learned counsel would further contend that the appellant was
appointed under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract
Appointment) Rules, 2004, and the action of the respondent
authorities in relying upon alleged adverse entries in his ACR/PAR
was without authority of law and contrary to the applicable rules
and procedure. It is contended that, towards the end of his service
tenure, certain adverse or downgraded remarks were allegedly
recorded in his service particulars, which were never
communicated to him, and the impugned action was taken without
affording him any fair opportunity of hearing or an opportunity to
represent against such remarks. Placing reliance upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of
India, learned counsel would submit that every entry in the

5
ACR/PAR, whether poor, fair, average, good or very good, which
may adversely affect the employee’s service prospects, is
required to be communicated within a reasonable period so as to
enable the employee to make an effective representation. It is
further submitted that the action of the authorities is violative of
the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias
and the principle of audi alteram partem, and that the requirement
of fairness and reasoned decision-making forms an integral part
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would
also refer to the State Government circular dated 24.12.2012
prescribing the procedure for recording ACR/PAR and the order
dated 03.06.2015 regarding the competent/authorized officers
empowered to record confidential reports, and submit that the
prescribed procedure and fair practice were not followed in the
appellant’s case and that the alleged adverse remarks could not
have been recorded on the basis of hearsay complaints or
extraneous considerations. It is, therefore, contended that the
discontinuance/non-extension of the appellant’s contractual
engagement is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the binding
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of
the Constitution of India, and that the learned Single Judge ought
to have properly appreciated these facts and allowed the
petition/application of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
5.
submissions made be learned counsel for the appellant in the

6
present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after
considering all the aspects has rightly disposed of the writ petition
filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no
interference is sought for.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that
6.
the appellant was appointed as Assistant Project Officer on
contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement issued by the
Collector (DRDA), Surajpur, and the appointment order dated
13.09.2013, which clearly stipulated that the engagement was
contractual for a fixed period and its continuation or extension was
subject to the terms and conditions of appointment and
assessment through the confidential report/ACR/PAR. It is
submitted that the appellant’s contractual engagement was
extended from time to time, but ultimately the same came to an
end and was not further extended on the basis of the relevant
assessment and service record. Learned counsel would further
submit that the appellant had unsuccessfully pursued the remedy
of appeal before the Commissioner, MGNREGA, which was
rejected by order dated 22.12.2018, and thereafter challenged the
orders dated 03.04.2019 and 22.12.2018 by filing W.P.(S)
No.4387/2019. It is contended that the learned Single Judge,
while taking note of the issue regarding non-communication of the
adverse ACR/PAR, has already protected the appellant’s interest
by observing that such uncommunicated adverse entries shall not
come in his way in the event he applies for any future contractual

7
appointment or any appointment under the State or its
agencies/instrumentalities. It is, therefore, submitted that since the
contractual period of the appellant had already expired and his
engagement was not extended in accordance with the terms and
conditions governing his appointment, he cannot claim
continuation or further extension as a matter of right. Learned
counsel would contend that the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is just, proper and well-reasoned and does not
warrant any interference in the present writ appeal, which is
devoid of merit and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
7.
impugned order and materials available on record.
From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned
8.
Single Judge, after considering the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties, recorded that the appellants had been
appointed pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2013 for a
contractual period of three years, which had already expired. It
was further observed that the contractual engagement of the
appellants had not been extended on account of the allegations
and adverse ACRs recorded against them. The learned Single
Judge, however, taking note of the judgments rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the requirement and procedure
for communication of ACR entries, held that the said procedure
had not been complied with and, consequently, the

8
uncommunicated adverse ACRs had lost their significance.
Nevertheless, considering the fact that the contractual period had
already come to an end, the writ petitions were disposed of with
the observation that, in the event the appellants applied for any
contractual appointment in future, the adverse ACRs which had
not been communicated to them would not come in their way for
consideration of their candidature for contractual appointment or
any other appointment under the State agencies/instrumentalities.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
9.
appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered
with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no
interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are
noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we
do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such,
we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
10. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha )
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet