JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the State, of Karnataka against the order of the learned single Judge dated 3rd July, 1975 made in W. P. No. 2516 of 1974. ( 2 ) THE facts so far as material, are as follows: the respondent was an allottee from the former State of Bombay. Ever since then, he has been fighting many battles against the Government both in this court and also in the Supreme Court. Prior to his allotment, he had suffered a penalty upon certain disciplinary proceedings. The legality of that penalty was questioned by him before the Supreme Court in W. P. No. 55 of 1960. In 1. 961, that writ petition was allowed quashing the said penalty. In the meantime, the respondent lost his legitimate rank in the provisional inter State Seniority list prepared by the State of Karnataka. Consequently, on 5th October, 1960, the juniors of the respondent were promoted as Joint directors. After the Supreme Court rendered the decision in favour of the respondent quashing the penalty imposed by the former State of Bombay, the respondent's legitimate seniority was restored end the State Government suo motu took steps to promote the petitioner to the cadre of the Joint director and promoted him as such by order dated 2nd January, 1962. ( 3 ) THE respondent, however, was not satisfied. His complaint was that he was overlooked on 5th October, 1960 for no fault of his. and non-consideration of his case for promotion with effect from that date was therefore illegal. He moved this Court with a writ Petition No. 942 of 1966 praying for a direction to the State Government to consider his case for promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted as Joint Directors. By order dated 24th May, 1971, this Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Government to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director with effect from 5th October, 1960. ( 4 ) IN obedience to the above direction the State Government considered the case of the respondent and made an order (Ext- 'e') dated 10th December, 1973 in the following terms: "order No. ED 66 DPI 69, Bangarlore, dated 10th December, 1973. ( 4 ) IN obedience to the above direction the State Government considered the case of the respondent and made an order (Ext- 'e') dated 10th December, 1973 in the following terms: "order No. ED 66 DPI 69, Bangarlore, dated 10th December, 1973. "in pursuance of the order of the high Court, the claims of Sri V. K. Javali for pro forma promotion and consequential refixation of pension gratuity and other benefits have been examined. Sri T. Vasudeviah, the immediate junior to Sri Javali was promoted on 5-10-1960 and not on 27-5-1960 as mentioned in the order of the High Court. Therefore, the case of Sri Javali for promotion with effect from 5-10-60 has been examined by Government in all its aspects and found him unfit as his confidential reports for the two consecutive years immediately prior to the date of consideration were highly unsatisfactory. " ( 5 ) THE respondent again moved this court with W. P. No. 2516 of 1974 questioning the validity of the above order. ( 6 ) IT is seen from the aforesaid order, the Government denied promotion to the respondent by relying upon his confidential reports for two consecutive years immediately prior to the date of consideration. The learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition, has held as follows:". . When on the 2nd of January, 1962 the confidential reports of the years 1959 and 1960 were not taken into consideration by the State government as they were not ayailable, the State Government could not have taken into consideration the confidential reports of those years when it passed the impugned order considering the case of the petitioner as on 5-10-1960. The taking into consideration of the subsequent records, in the circumstances, was clearly impermissible. "in this appeal, Sri Brahmarayappa, learned High Court Government advocate urged that it was proper for the State Government to take into consideration the confidential reports of the respondent for the years 1959 and 1960 when his case was considered as on 5th October, 1960. According to him, those confidential reports were not available for scrutiny on 2nd january, 1962 when he was promoted then. ( 7 ) THERE is considerable force in this submission provided if the adverse remarks were recorded and relied upon in accordanca with law. According to him, those confidential reports were not available for scrutiny on 2nd january, 1962 when he was promoted then. ( 7 ) THERE is considerable force in this submission provided if the adverse remarks were recorded and relied upon in accordanca with law. It is not in dispute that the confidential reports of the respondent for the years 1959 and 1960 were not available for scrutiny on 2nd January, 1962. They were recorded only after 2nd January, 1962. When the respondent's case was considered for promotion with effect from 5th October, 1960, they were available before Government. If the confidential reports with the adverse remarks had been recorded and communicated in accordance with law, it would be correct for the Government to consider the same for denying promotion to the respondent. ( 8 ) BUT the adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the respondent for the years 1959 and 1960 were admittedly not communicated to the respondent at any time although the rules relating to the recording of confidential reports then existing required such communication. Rule 8 of the karnataka Civil Services (Confidential reports) Rules, 1965 as it then existed provided that all adverse remarks whether through an ordinary or special report shall be communicated to the officer coreernde, forthwith. ( 9 ) THE importance of communication of the adverse remarks has been emphasized by the learned Chief justice of the Supreme Court in gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1622 @ 1626 as follows: 1. "the principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person, concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. . . . "the communication of the adverse remarks in the instant case was a statutory obligation and it would therefore be impermissible for the Government to act upon those remarks for denying promotion to the respondent since admittedly there was no such communication to him. . . . "the communication of the adverse remarks in the instant case was a statutory obligation and it would therefore be impermissible for the Government to act upon those remarks for denying promotion to the respondent since admittedly there was no such communication to him. ( 10 ) THIS takes us to the second question whether the respondent is entitled to the consequential financial benefits to which he would be otherwise entitled to had he been promoted with effect from 5th October, 1960. To deny such benefit, the Government has relied upon the provisions of the karaataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, pay and Pension) act, 1974 (Karnataka Act, No. 11 of 1974) hereinafter referred to as the act and in particular, sub-sec. (8) of s. 4 of the said Act The learned, single Judge has examined this question and held that it has no application to the case of the respondent. We entirely agree with the view taken by the learnd single Judge. The Act would be attracted to a case where there is a variance in the rankings Assigned to a person in the provisional and final Inter-State Seniority Lists. The rsespondent is not claiming his promotion on the basis of his higher ranking in the final Inter-State Seniority last. Nor it is the case of the appellant that the respondent was entitled to be promoted from a retrospective date consequent on the restoration of his seniority in the final Inter-State seniority List. The State has come forward with an honest case stating that the respondent became entitled to his promotion consequent on the decision of the Supreme Court. Haying thus said, it would be illogical and illegal to deny the respondent his consequential financial benefits upon his promotion as Joint Director of Public instruction with effect from 5th october 1960. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. ( 12 ) THE respondent has argued his case personally. He is a retired Government official who has been unreasonably denied his legitimate promotion. He must therefore be paid his costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .