M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a Telephone inspector in the Posts and Telegraphs department of the Central Government has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction his increments after declaring that he had crossed the efficiency bar which was due to him with effect from 3rd July 1977 ( 2 ) THE petitioner was promoted as selection Grade Telephone Inspector on 1st June 1974. The pay scale applicable to the post was Rs. 42515560- eb20-640. One year prior to 3rd july 1977, the petitioner had reached the pay of Rs. 560. On 3rd July 1977 he was entitled to get an increment of rs. 20 provided the appointing authority declared that the petitioner had crossed the efficiency bar successfully. The same was denied to the petitioner by the Appointing Authority. ( 3 ) THE decision taken by the Appointing Authority, not to allow the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar on 3rd July, 1977 was based on the recommendation of the Departmental promotion Committee (the D. P. C. ). The proceedings of the meeting of the d. P. C. held on 23rd December 1977 in which the case of the petitioner was considered for the purpose, was produced at the time of hearing. The relevant portion reads: 23rd Dec. 1977. ( 4 ) IN view of the above decision, it was submitted on behalf of the Appinting Authority, that its decision was unassailable. In order to find out as to whether there was any correlation between the decision of the D. P. C. and the confidential reports of the petitioner for the 3 years, i. e. , 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 referred to in the proceedings of the D. P. C. , the respondents were directed to produce the confidential reports for those years. Accordingly, the same have been produced. The substance of the confidential reports may be summarised as follows: (1) 1974 September to 1975 March: the official has good knowledge of procedure and regulation. Devotion to duty Good, Conduct Good, duty performance is satisfactory. Hard working and fit for more responsible work, deserves special consideration. (2) 1975-76 the official has more intelligence and ability than an average official of his cadre. Devotion to duty Good, Conduct Good, duty performance is satisfactory. Hard working and fit for more responsible work, deserves special consideration. (2) 1975-76 the official has more intelligence and ability than an average official of his cadre. Conduct - Good, Character good, obedient to superior officers, nothing adverse about his integrity, performance - satisfactory, hard working, and, volunteers to shoulder higher responsibilities, fit for more responsible work, deserves special selection for promotion. No other adverse effects were noticed. (3) 1976-77 character and Conduct - Good, well disciplined, attitude to superiors is satisfactory, possesses good knowledge of procedure and regulations concerning with his duties, general performance satisfactory, he is able to guideline staff in clearing faults well, capable of taking additional responsibilities, fit for more responsible work, fit for promotion in the ordinary way. (4) April 1977 to September 1977 character - satisfactory, devotion to duty - good, knowledge of procedure and regulations - good, fit, for promotion in the ordinary way. In the last report referred to above against column 17 it was mentioned that disciplinary proceedings were in vogue for not obeying superiors' orders and there was a corresponding entry about his conduct to the effect that he was argumentative. This remark was later expunged by an order dated 2. 2. 78, pursuant, to the order made in the departmental enquiry and a specific entry to the effect "entry expunged" is also found. ( 5 ) THE extracts of the confidential reports including the last one in which there was an adverse remark against the petitioner that he was argumentative with his official superior show that the record of service was not only good but was above the average. In fact certificate to the effect that he was fit to shoulder higher responsibilities and fit even for higher posts had been the consistent remarks made in the confidential reports. However, it is clear that the opinion of the D. P. C. that the petitioner was not fit for crossing the efficiency bar as on 3rd July 1977 and it should be considered letter was based on the adverse entry found in the report last mentioned. However, it is clear that the opinion of the D. P. C. that the petitioner was not fit for crossing the efficiency bar as on 3rd July 1977 and it should be considered letter was based on the adverse entry found in the report last mentioned. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the existence of that adverse report against the petitioner at the time when the case of the petitioner was considered neither the decision of the D. P. C. nor the decision of the appointing Authority can be considered as arbitrary or illegal. He submitted that even if there were consistent good remarks in favour of the petitioner, the d. P. C. had on an overall consideration of the case, came to the conclusion that petitioner was not suitable to cross the efficiency bar and that such a decision was not justiciable in a court of law. There is considerable force in the contention urged for the respondents. ( 7 ) THE only question which however arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether in view of the expunging of the only adverse remarks, but for the existence of which the petitioner in all probability would have been considered fit for crossing the efficiency bar as on 3rd July 1977, has a right for reconsideration of his case for crossing the efficiency bar with effect from 3rd July 1977, after the adverse remark was expugned. In my view, he has such right. This is also evident from the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Count in the case. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, I make the following order: (I) Rule made absolute. (II) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner regarding his eligibility to cross the efficiency bar as on 3rd July 1977 on the basis of the confidential reports for the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 as it exists after the expunging of the adverse remarks. (III) If on such consideration the petitioner is found fit for crossing the efficiency bar with effect from 3rd July 1977, he shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from such a decision. --- *** --- .