JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. The petitioner was directly recruited to the Indian Police Service in 1961 and was allotted to the State Cadre of Uttar Pradesh. He was confirmed on 2-12-1963 and was promoted to the senior scale on 27-7-1965. He was further selected and promoted to the Selection Grade of Indian Police Service with effect from 15-11-1974 under the order of the State Government dated 28-11-1975 The petitioner was confirmed in the senior scale and on 15-8-1977 he was awarded President’s Police Medal for long and meritorious service. While working in the Selection Grade the petitioner was considered for promotion to the supertime scale post of the Deputy Inspector General of Police along with a number of other officers. The petitioner was, however, not selected instead officers junior to him were selected and promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the State Government dated 2-12-1980 making promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police and superseding the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Inspector General of Police before his juniors are promoted. 2. The Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules 1954, framed under S. 3, All India Services Act, 1951, provide for selection and promotion of members of Indian Police Service to selection post and super-time scale posts. Rule 3 (2-A), Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the rules, lays down that appointment to the Selection Grade and to posts carrying pay above the time-scale of pay in the Indian Police Service shall be made by selection on merit with due regard to seniority. Schedule III to the Rules enumerates the posts carrying pay above the time scale of pay of Indian Police Service under the State Government. The Schedule as applicable to Uttar Pradesh includes the posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police in that scale. Rule 3 (2-A) read with R. 8 and Schedule III makes it amply clear that appointment to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police in Uttar Pradesh is to be made by selection on the application of the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority. Rule 3 (2-A) read with R. 8 and Schedule III makes it amply clear that appointment to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police in Uttar Pradesh is to be made by selection on the application of the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority. The expression “merit with due regard to seniority” denotes that in making the selection the merit of the officer is to play primary part and the seniority is secondary; although seniority cannot be altogether ignored. Though the Rules prescribe criteria for selection but they do not lay down any methodology for making the selection. The Rules are silent on this question. The yawning gap has, however, been filled by administrative directions issued by the Home Ministry of the Union Government as contained in the Government of India’s letter dated 26-8- 1976. The letter stated that the question of setting up of a suitable machinery and formulating guidelines for selecting members of the Indian Police Service for promotion to the senior scale, selection grade and the super-time scale, has, been under the consideration of the Central Government for sometime, the Government has decided that a screening committee should be set up and guidelines as mentioned in the order should be followed in making the selection of the members of the Indian Police Service to the various grades of service. The guidelines for selection to the senior scale posts, selection grade and to the super-time scale posts are prescribed as under : I. Promotion to senior scale posts : The State Inspector General of Police may evaluate the performance of the members of the Indian Police Service in the junior scale for deciding, their suitability for promotion to senior scale posts and make suitable recommendations to the State Government. II. Promotion to the Selection Grade :- A committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, the Secretary in charge of the Police Department in the State and the State Inspector General of Police may screen the cases of officers in the senior scale of the Indian Police Service for promotion to the selection grade, on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority. III. Promotion to Supertime Scale Posts : (1) Composition of Screening Committee : The screening committee for this purpose may be the same as the one constituted for screening officers in the senior scale for promotion to the selection grade. III. Promotion to Supertime Scale Posts : (1) Composition of Screening Committee : The screening committee for this purpose may be the same as the one constituted for screening officers in the senior scale for promotion to the selection grade. The screening committee for the joint cadre of Union territories would comprise the Home Secretary as Chairman with the Additional Secretary or the Joint Secretary in Ministry of Home Affairs who is in charge of U. P. Police and the Inspector General of Police, Delhi, as members.” In accordance with the aforesaid directions, the State Government constituted a selection committee consisting of the Chief Secretary Sri T.P. Tewari, Home Secretary, Sri R. C. Takru, and the Inspector General of Police of Uttar Pradesh. The Committee followed the method of selection as prescribed by the Government of India’s letter dated 26th Aug., 1976, which laid down the method of selection as under : “(3) Method of selection : (1) Selection should be based on merit with due regard to seniority as provided in subrule 2 (a) of Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. (ii) Suitability of officers to hold supertime scale posts may be judged by evaluating their character roll, record as a whole, and general assessment of their work. (iii) An officer against whom a vigilance or departmental inquiry has been started should also be assessed and the assessment placed in a sealed cover. The question of including him in the panel should be considered when the result of the inquiry is known. (iv) The reasons for supersession ray be kept on record in the case of officers who are not included in the panel. (v) An officer who has not been included in the panel in the first instance should be eligible for reconsideration every two years after earning two more reports. (vi) Special review may be done in cases where adverse remarks in the officers annual confidential reports are expunged subsequently as a result of their representations. The committee considered the service record of all the eligible officers including the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police. The Committee. did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, instead officers junior to him were found suitable for promotion to the post. The Committee recorded reasons for the petitioner’s supersession. The Committee. did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, instead officers junior to him were found suitable for promotion to the post. The Committee recorded reasons for the petitioner’s supersession. In pursuance of the recommendation of the selection committee, Sarvsri B. S. Bedi. V. S. Mathu, C. L. Wasan and S. N. P. Sinha. who were junior in service to the petitioner, have been promoted to the super-time scale post of Deputy Inspector General of Police. 3. As noted earlier, the selection committee is required to evaluate the character roll record of an officer as a whole and it has to make general assessment of the officer on the basis of criteria of merit with due regard to seniority. The directions contained in the Government’s letter dated 26-8-1976 required the committee to record reasons if it decides to supersede any officer. In the instant case, the committee has recorded reasons for superseding the petitioner. The reasons as recorded by the committee were produced before us in original by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. On perusal of the same we found that the selection committee referred to various adverse entries awarded to the petitioner right from the inception of his career in the police service. The committee referred to the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner in his character roll for the years 1961, 1963, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1974-75 and 1975-76. In addition to these adverse entries the committee referred to a complaint made on Mar. 21, 1980, by the then District Magistrate of Varanasi. Sri Bhurey Lal. making allegations against the petitioner. The committee noted that enquiry into those allegations was being conducted by the Additional Inspector General of Railway Police. The committee stated that in view of these adverse entries the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion to the supertime scale post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, while his juniors were found better than him. The recommendation made by the selection committee does not refer to the petitioner’s promotion to the selection grade or to the President’s Medal awarded to the petitioner, instead it referred to the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner in a number of years prior to 1977. On the recommendation of the selection committee the State Government superseded the petitioner and promoted the officers who were junior to the petitioner. 4. On the recommendation of the selection committee the State Government superseded the petitioner and promoted the officers who were junior to the petitioner. 4. Sri v. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. urged that the selection committee committed an error in superseding the petitioner on the basis of adverse entries awarded to him in the years prior to his promotion to the selection grade and award of the President’s Medal. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner’s entire record of service was screened by the same selection committee and he was found suitable for promotion to the selection grade on the application of the same criteria as contained in R. 3 i2-AI read with the directions of the Central Government contained in the letter dated 26-8-1976. the adverse entries, if any. which existed prior to 1975 lost all value and those entries cannot constitute relevant material for purposes of superseding the petitioner. Similarly. the adverse entries, if any. existing in the petitioner’s service record prior to 1977 when he was awarded President’s Medal, lost all value and those entries could not be taken into account. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the selection grade in 1975 despite the entries awarded to him in the year 1961, 1963, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69. 1969-70 and 1974-75. The question arises as to whether these entries lost their value on the petitioner’s promotion to the selection grade. While considering this question, it is necessary to bear in mind that selection for promotion to the selection grade in the Indian Police Service is made by a committee constituted by the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and the Inspector General of Police of the State and the criteria for selection is merit with due regard to the seniority as enjoined by R. 3 (2-A) of the Rules. The substance of the petitioner’s contention is that as the petitioner was found suitable for promotion to the selection grade in the year 1975 despite adverse entries awarded to him in the earlier years, the irresistible conclusion is that the selection committee did not attach any value to those adverse entries and after the petitioner’s selection and promotion to the selection grade those adverse entries became irrelevant for any future promotion of the petitioner. This submission is based on the doctrine of washing off adverse entries on the promotion of a Government servant to a higher post on the basis of merit and suitability. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a number of authorities for the proposition that once an officer is allowed to cross efficiency bar or he is promoted to a higher post on the basis of his merit, the adverse entries, if any, existing in his service record prior to that period lost all value and they ceased to constitute relevant material for the purpose of retiring a Government servant compulsorily or for reverting him to his substantive post. We will now refer to these authorities. 6. The doctrine of wiping off adverse entries on crossing efficiency bar by a Government servant, was enunciated for the first time by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal ( AIR 1970 SC 2086 ). Dewan Chuni Lal was a Sub Inspector of Police in the service of the State of Punjab. He earned a number of adverse entries in service record, but subsequently he was allowed to cross efficiency bar. In Oct. 1949, a charge of inefficiency was framed against him and he was called upon to answer those charges which were based on the adverse entries as awarded to him in his character roll. He was dismissed from service. Thereupon, he filed a suit in the civil Court. The trial Court declared that the order of dismissal from service was illegal and inoperative. On appeal, the High Court upheld the trial Court’s decree. On appeal by the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the decree of the High Court and it observed thus (para 14) : “In our view reports earlier than 1944 should not have been considered at all in as much as he was allowed to cross efficiency bar in that year. On appeal by the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the decree of the High Court and it observed thus (para 14) : “In our view reports earlier than 1944 should not have been considered at all in as much as he was allowed to cross efficiency bar in that year. It is unthinkable that if the authorities take any serious view of the charge of dishonesty and inefficiency contained in the confidential reports of 1941 and 1942 they could have overlooked the same and recommended the case of the officer as one fit for crossing efficiency bar in 1944.” The above observations of the Supreme Court, if considered in the backdrop of the facts involved in that case would make it clear that the adverse entries awarded to a Government servant after he is allowed to cross efficiency bar lose all value. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. D. N. Sharma, (1975-1 All L R 399), a Division Bench of this Court while upholding the order of a learned single Judge quashing the order of compulsory retirement, held that adverse entries awarded to a Government officer prior to his crossing efficiency bar and promotion to senior post lost all value and since the authorities despite all those entries allowed the officer to cross efficiency bar and granted him promotion, would very clearly show that the entries had lost all value and the same could not be taken into account while considering the material for the purpose of retiring a Government servant in public interest. In Girish Chandra v. Union of India (1976 Lab IC 1608) another Division Bench of this Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement of a member of the Indian Administrative Service. The Bench held that the adverse entries, if any, awarded to the officer prior to his promotion to the Indian Administrative Service stood wiped off and those entries were not relevant while considering the question as to whether he should be retired in public interest. 7. The Bench held that the adverse entries, if any, awarded to the officer prior to his promotion to the Indian Administrative Service stood wiped off and those entries were not relevant while considering the question as to whether he should be retired in public interest. 7. In Brijendra Singh v. Union of India (1980-1 Serv LR 433) (Delhi), a learned single Judge while quashing the order of compulsory retirement of an officer of the Indian Police Service held that the adverse entries awarded to the officer prior to the award of police medal lost all value and ceased to constitute valid material and as such the same could not be taken into consideration for formation of opinion for compulsory retirement of the officer. These authorities fully support the petitioner’s contention that adverse entries awarded to the petitioner lose their value after the promotion of the petitioner to the selection grade and the award of the President’s Medal to him, and the entries prior to his promotion could not constitute a valid material for the purpose of his supersession. 8. In Swami Saran Saksena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, ( AIR 1980 SC 269 ), the order of compulsory retirement of a Government servant was set aside on the ground that Swami Saran had been allowed to cross the second efficiency bar on the consideration that he had worked with distinct ability and with integrity beyond question and yet within a few months he was found so unfit to deserve compulsory retirement. The Court observed that the entries in between in the records pertaining to Swami Saran should be examined and appraised in that context. If it is done then there was no evidence to show that suddenly there was such deterioration in the quality of work of Swami Saran that he deserved to be retired. The Supreme Court judgment, in our opinion, clearly makes out that once an officer is allowed to cross efficiency bar despite adverse entries which may have been awarded to him in the prior years, he could not be compulsorily retired on the basis of those entries. In Baldev Raj Chaddha v. Union of India, ( AIR 1981 SC 70 ), the Supreme Court struck down the order of compulsory retirement made by the Accountant General under Fundamental Rule 56 (j). Baldev Raj was Accounts Officer since Dec. 30, 1961. In Baldev Raj Chaddha v. Union of India, ( AIR 1981 SC 70 ), the Supreme Court struck down the order of compulsory retirement made by the Accountant General under Fundamental Rule 56 (j). Baldev Raj was Accounts Officer since Dec. 30, 1961. On August 27, 1975, he was compulsorily retired in public interest in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (j). After his promotion in 1961 Baldev Raj had been drawing increments for over a decade without any let or hinderance and he reached the maximum of the scale and was allowed to cross efficiency bar increments. The reviewing committee which was constituted to consider the cases of the officers for the purpose of premature retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) after a careful assessment of the performance of Baldeo Raj as depicted in the confidential reports had come to the conclusion that Baldeo Raj Chaddha should be retired compulsorily as he was not able to perform efficiently and effectively the duties of the post held by him. The adverse entries which were taken into account related to the years 1961-62, 1964-65 and 1969-70. The Supreme Court held that since Baldeo Raj Chaddha had been allowed to cross efficiency bar and further as he had been allowed to draw maximum salary in the scale and there were no adverse entries for the last five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, the committee could not rely on the old and obsolete entries in recommending compulsory retirement. v. R. Krishna Iyer, J. Speaking for the Court, observed (Para 15) : “One wonders how an officer whose continuous service for fourteen years crossing efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale with no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before compulsory retirement could be cashiered on the score that many years ago his performance had been poor although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. A short cut may often be a wrong cut. The order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the decision has been ignored and obsolete material, less relevant to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignored wilfully or otherwise vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law. The order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the decision has been ignored and obsolete material, less relevant to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignored wilfully or otherwise vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law. Likewise, any action which irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon, cannot be sustained. Legality depends on record or the totality of the material facts viewed in a holistic perspective. For these reasons the order challenged is obviously had and we quash it.” The above observations catergorically lay down that adverse entries, if any, made against the officer prior to his crossing efficiency bar lose all value and they become obsolete, those entries cannot be taken into account while considering the question of retention of a Government servant in service. These authorities, no doubt, deal with the compulsory retirement of a Government servant and the question of promotion was not involved in of these cases, but that does not affect the impact of the decisions. In the matter of compulsory retirement the authority has to form an opinion as to whether the premature retirement of an officer is in public interest on the overall assessment of his entire service record. If in a case where promotion is made after considering the entire service record then the doctrine which has been adopted in the matter of compulsory retirement should also apply to case of promotion also. The recent trend appears to be that that the doctrine of washing off the adverse entries on promotion of an officer is a good doctrine which ensures justice to the public servants. 9. In the Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, ( AIR 1976 SC 1766 ), Pawan Kumar Dubey was a senior station In charge. He was holding the substantive post of Junior Station In charge. He was promoted on an officiating basis to the higher post of Senior Station In charge. Subsequently he was reverted from the post of Senior Station i/c to substantive post on the ground of certain misconduct as indicated by the adverse entry communicated to him. Pawan Kumar Dubey challenged his order of reversion before this Court on a number of grounds. A learned single judge as well as a Division Bench of this Court quashed the order of reversion. Pawan Kumar Dubey challenged his order of reversion before this Court on a number of grounds. A learned single judge as well as a Division Bench of this Court quashed the order of reversion. On appeal by the Regional Manager the Supreme Court upheld the order of this Court. The order of reversion was sought to be justified before the Supreme Court on the complaints made against him as well as on the number of adverse entries awarded to him. Repelling the contention the Supreme Court observed thus (Para 16) : “There were some old adverse entries also against the respondent but they must be deemed to have been washed off by the orders of his promotion on ‘ad hoc’ or officiating basis by an order of 7th March, 1972, which had been approved by the Deputy Transport Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh on 18th March, 1972 as required by The above observations of the Supreme I r the Rules. The above observation of the supreme Court leave no room for any doubt about the doctrine that adverse entries awarded to an officer prior to his promotion even if it be on ad hoc and officiating basis would stand washed off. If that be so, the adverse entries lost all value and they could not constitute any valid material for considering the same again at the next selection or promotion of the officer. Applying the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar ‘s case, (1976 Lab IC 1146) it would be legitimate to hold that if an officer is selected and promoted to a higher post despite adverse entries against him, those adverse entries lose all their value and it is not open to the authorities to consider those adverse entries against the officer again at the time of his subsequent promotion. After promotion by selection despite adverse entries the adverse entries lose all value and they cease to be of any relevant material for consideration for further promotion. In Satish Chandra Mittal v. State of U. P. (1975-1 Serv LR 65), a learned Judge of this Court held that adverse entries in the character roll of an officer prior to his selection as Superintending Engineer lost all their value after he was selected to that post on merits which was determined on the basis of his service record. In Satish Chandra Mittal v. State of U. P. (1975-1 Serv LR 65), a learned Judge of this Court held that adverse entries in the character roll of an officer prior to his selection as Superintending Engineer lost all their value after he was selected to that post on merits which was determined on the basis of his service record. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge. If crossing efficiency bar would make the prior adverse entries ineffective the -same result would follow with greater force if an officer is promoted to selecting grade on consideration of his service record including those adverse entries. We have, therefore, good authority in the cases of Dewan Chunni Lal, ( AIR 1970 SC 2086 ), Pawan Kumar Dubey (1976 Lab IC 1146) (SC) and Satish Chandra Mittal (1975 Lab IC 285) (All) (supra) to support the view that the doctrine of washing off the adverse entries on promotion of an officer to higher post is applicable to selection and promotion and the contention that the principle should be confined only to the case of compulsory retirement does not appear to be reasonable or sound. If the adverse entries ceased to be effective, they cannot constitute valid material and even if the entire record of the officer is taken into account those entries cannot be used against the officer concerned for purposes of denying him future promotion. If it were not so, an officer would be subject to repeated review of his adverse entries of remote past at various stages even though they were rendered ineffective as he was given promotion to higher post at an earlier stage despite those adverse entries. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner was considered for promotion to the selection grade by the committee constituted by the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and Inspector General of Police in accordance with the directions contained in the Government Order dated 21-8-1976 on the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority. The committee considered the entire service record of the petitioner and thereupon found him fit for promotion to the selection grade and on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee the State Government by its order dated 28- 11-1975 (Annexure X to the petition) granted selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 15-11-1974. The committee considered the entire service record of the petitioner and thereupon found him fit for promotion to the selection grade and on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee the State Government by its order dated 28- 11-1975 (Annexure X to the petition) granted selection grade to the petitioner with effect from 15-11-1974. The adverse entries prior to 1975 thus ceased to have any value. Since the committee did not attach any importance to those adverse entries and it found the petitioner suitable for promotion on the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority, all those adverse entries lost their value. But now in making selection for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, the same committee has attached importance to those entries against the petitioner. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Courts we are, therefore, of the opinion that adverse entries awarded to the petitioner prior to 1975 had lost their value and those were not relevant and the selection committee could not consider the same entries again while evaluating the petitioner’s suitability for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police. Since the committee considered the irrelevant material in superseding the petitioner, the order superseding the petitioner is rendered illegal. 11. Sri v. N. Khare, learned Chief Standing Counsel, urged that where selection for promotion to a higher post is considered on merits, on the basis of the evaluation of entire record of service, the principle of wiping out of adverse entries on the ground of crossing of efficiency bar or on the ground of promotion being granted to a higher post, does not apply. He placed reliance on M/s Ghulam Hussan v. Union of India, ( AIR 1973 SC 1138 ), S.S.S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa (1974-2 Serv LR 899) (Orissa) (FB), Ran Singh Kalson v. State of Haryana (1978-1 Serv LR 450) (Punj & Har), Govind Sadasiv Aparajit v. State of Maharashtra, (1979 Serv U 132) : 11978 Lab IC 1703) (Bom) and Ramesh Prasad Mahapatra v. State of Orissa (1980 Serv LJ 566) (Orissa) (FB). We consider it necessary to discuss these authorities in detail. 12. We consider it necessary to discuss these authorities in detail. 12. In Mir Ghulam Hussan v. Union of India, ( AIR 1973 SC 1138 ) the selection and promotion of the members of the State Civil Service to the All India Service was challenged on various grounds. One of the grounds of attack was that certain adverse remarks were considered against the petitioners by the selection committee while those remarks had not been communicated to them prior to the holding of the selection. The petitioner’s contention was that if those entries were excluded there were no adverse entries against the petitioners and they were entitled to be selected for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and observed (Para 8) : “This claim is of course completely misconceived for the simple reason, that the promotion is not made on the basis of absence of complaint but on the basis of positive merit. Absence of adverse remarks is no criterion of the quality of the officer.” The Supreme Court was not dealing with the question in the above case with which we are faced in the instant case. It cannot be disputed that where selection is on the basis of merit, absence of adverse entries does not show positive merit of an officer, but presence of adverse entries is bound to affect the selection of an officer on merits. The case of Mir Ghulam Hussan is not relevant for the purpose of the question in hand. 13. In Ran Singh Kalson v. State of Haryana (1978-1 Serv LR 450) a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that adverse entries awarded in the character roll of an officer are not completely wiped off merely on his being allowed to cross efficiency bar and those entries could be taken into consideration for judging the suitability of the officer for promotion to a higher post. The Bench placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of Orissa High Court in S. S. S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa, (1974-2 Serv L R 899). The Bench placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of Orissa High Court in S. S. S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa, (1974-2 Serv L R 899). The Bench held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Dewan Chunni Lal’s case ( AIR 1970 SC 2086 ) (supra) has no bearing on the question as to whether the adverse entries in the character roll of a Government servant prior to the date he was allowed to cross efficiency bar, could not be taken into account when assessing his suitability for promotion to a higher rank. With deference to the learned Judge, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In Dewan Chunni Lal’s case ( AIR 1970 SC 2086 ), as discussed earlier, the question was as to whether the adverse entries made in the 1941 and 1942 against the officer could be taken into account in holding that the officer was inefficient and dishonest. It must be kept in mind that the charges of inefficiency against Chunni Lai were founded on the adverse remarks awarded to him in 1941 and 1942 although he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar in 1944. In the background of these facts the Supreme Court held in categorical words that the adverse remarks if any prior to 1944 could not be considered at all against the officer in holding the charge of inefficiency proved against him, inasmuch as he was allowed to cross efficiency bar in 1944 as it was unthinkable that the authorities took any serious view of the charge of dishonesty and inefficiency contained in the confidential report of 1941 and 1942. Further the Bench did not consider the positive finding of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Dubey’s case (1976 Lab IC 1146) that if once an officer is allowed to officiate on a higher post adverse entries, if any, awarded to him prior to his promotion stood washed off. For these reasons we are unable to accept the view as expressed in Ran Singh’s case (1978 Lab IC 764) (Punj & Har). 14. In Govind Sadasiv Aprajit v. State of Maharashtra, (1979 Serv U 132) (Bom), the petitioner had challenged the promotion of the respondents in that case to the post of Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. For these reasons we are unable to accept the view as expressed in Ran Singh’s case (1978 Lab IC 764) (Punj & Har). 14. In Govind Sadasiv Aprajit v. State of Maharashtra, (1979 Serv U 132) (Bom), the petitioner had challenged the promotion of the respondents in that case to the post of Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The petitioner’s case was that he being senior was entitled to selection as the criteria for selection was seniority-cummerit On behalf of the respondents it was asserted that the petitioner’s record of %er\ice was not efficient as he had earned a number of adverse entries. On behalf of the petitioner. it was urged that the adverse remarks as contained in the petitioner’s record of service prior to 1978 when he was allowed to cross efficiency bar could not be taken into consideration. On behalf of the State reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in S. S. S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa (1974 Lab IC 1192) (supra). The Bench noted the authorities and observed that once it is held that promotion is to be made on the basis of positive merit it would be extremely untenable to say that merely because of officer is allowed to cross efficiency bar all adverse entries up to that stage cannot be taken into account for the purpose of promotion. The Bench did not, however, decide the question as it observed that no general rule in that behalf could be laid down as everything must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Bench further observed that if a person was permitted to cross efficiency bar, that fact itself would be relevant while considering his service record. The Bench observed that it was not necessary to probe into that question in detail in that case as it had already recorded a finding that the petitioners case was not considered for promotion when the respondents were promoted and as such he was entitled to relief on that short question. The Bombay High Court decision is no authority for the proposition made by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 15. The Bombay High Court decision is no authority for the proposition made by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 15. The Orissa High Court in two of its decisions in S. S. S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa (1974-2 Serv L R 899) (FB) and Ramesh Prasad Mahapatra v. State of Orissa (1980 Serv U 566) (FB) took the view that adverse entries awarded to an officer are not wiped off even though the officer is allowed to cross efficiency bar and those entries can be taken into account against the officer at the time of his promotion. In Venkatrao’s case, a Full Bench of three Judges held that it would be extremely unreasonable to say that merely because an officer has been allowed to cross efficiency bar all entries prior to that stage cannot be taken into consideration for other purposes. The correctness of the Full Bench decision was doubted by a Division Bench of that Court, it, therefore, referred the matter for reconsideration to a Bench of five Judges in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dewan Chuni Lal’s case ( AIR 1970 SC 2086 ). The Full Bench in Ramesh Prasad Mahapatra v. State of Orissa held that the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Venkatrao’s case was correct. It further held that allowing an officer to cross efficiency bar will not have the effect of wiping off the adverse entries made in the confidential character roll while considering his case for promotion. With great respect we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the Full Bench. In the first place, the Full Bench has made an effort to distinguish Dewan Chuni Lal’s care ( AIR 1970 SC 2086 ), and the learned Judges have held that the dictum laid down in that case should be confined to the facts of that case. We find no good reason to accept this view. The Supreme Court in clear terms held that the charge of inefficiency could not be framed against Dewan Chuni Lal which was framed on the basis of confidential reports of 1941 and 1942 because he had been allowed to cross efficiency bar in 1944. In our opinion, the premise of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dewan Chuni Lal’s case was not correctly appreciated by the Orissa High Court. In our opinion, the premise of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dewan Chuni Lal’s case was not correctly appreciated by the Orissa High Court. Moreover, the Full Bench did not at all advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Dubey’s case (1976 Lab IC 1146), as that case does not appear to have been cited before their Lordships. But even assuming that the two Full Bench decisions of Orissa High Court lay down the correct proposition of law, the respondents cannot draw any support from those decisions, as in the instant case the question of wiping out of adverse entries on the ground of the petitioner having crossed the efficiency bar is not involved. The petitioners case is that a committee constituted of the same persons considered his case and found him suitable on the application of the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority for promotion to the selection grade in 1975 despite the adverse entries, and as such those entries have lost all value and are not relevant. The question involved in the instant case is whether the same selection committee could again rely on those adverse entries to which it had attached no importance in 1975 while making recommendation for petitioner’s promotion to the selection grade. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Dubey’s case (1976 Lab IC 1146) is clear that the adverse entries made prior to the promotion of an officer stand washed off. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner as contained in the petitioner’s character roll. prior to 1975 stood wiped off on his promotion to the selection grade and those entries could not constitute valid material in superseding the petitioner while making selection for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in 1977 the President of India awarded Police Medal to the petitioner for long and meritorious service. Since the recommendation for awarding President’s Medal was made by the State Government itself, it was not open to the Government to’ supersede the petitioner on the ground that he had earned a number of adverse entries in his character roll. President’s Police Medal is awarded in accordance with the Statutes and Rules framed by the President under the notification dated Mar. President’s Police Medal is awarded in accordance with the Statutes and Rules framed by the President under the notification dated Mar. 1, 1951, published in the gazette. Police Medal is of two kinds, (1) for meritorious services and (2) for gallantry. The Statutes lay down that the Medal shall be awarded to only those of the police officers who have performed service of conspicuous merit and gallantry. A police medal awarded by the President can be cancelled also. The petitioner was awarded Police Medal by the President of India for meritorious services rendered by him and he was decorated with that award on 15th Aug., 1979, by the President of India. The citation to the Medal is as under: “Sri Girish Bihari was appointed to the Indian Police Service as an Assistant Supdt. of Police on June 1, 1961. He gave a good account during his training. His first posting was as Circle Officer in Kanpur when he did excellent work in intercepting an armed gang of dacoits which had hatched a conspiracy in the city to commit a dacoity in the rural area. He was found to be courageous officer who could face all hazards and risk in the performance of his duties. He also devoted himself for eradicating corruption. He was promoted to the senior scale of the Indian Police Service on July 27, 1965 and posted as Addl. Supdt. of Police, Agra. where he gave a good account of himself. Here too, he took pains to eradicate corruption from amongst his subordinates. Sri Girish Behari went to the Indo Bangladesh Border as Commandant IV Bn. PAC Agartala where he did commendable work. On his return, he was posted as Supdt. of Police, Mathura in Aug., 1967. This was the first independent district charge and he did very well. After Mathura, Sri Girish Bihari served as Commandant, XXIII Bn. PAC, Moradabad and then went on deputation to Government of India in the Cabinet Secretariat where he served for more than three years from 1970 to 1973. The qualities of head and heart his leadership and his social contacts were all adjudged to be of a high order. His performances were rated as very good. He did the basic intelligence course from 5-4-71 to 25-5-71 obtaining second position. The qualities of head and heart his leadership and his social contacts were all adjudged to be of a high order. His performances were rated as very good. He did the basic intelligence course from 5-4-71 to 25-5-71 obtaining second position. Sri Girish Bihari was called upon to deliver a number of lectures to the officers of Cabinet Secretariat, and in police and public institutions. His papers on the subject have been published in a number of professional journals. During his posting in the Cabinet Secretariat, he was also made officer-in-charge of cipher and wireless operations and his performance in this field was also described as very good. Sri Girish Bihari was posted in the v. Bn. PAC, as Commandant in 1973. He succeeded in restoring complete discipline in this unit and his Battalion won the Government Shield for best welfare work in the State. Sri Girish Bihari was promoted as Supdt. of Police in selection grade with effect from 1-11-74. Sri Girish Bihari was posted as Supdt. of Police, Basti, in Jan., 1976. He exercised supervision over different branches of police work and brought about marked improvement. Sri Girish Behari was decorated with the State award of U. P. Govt. for his meritorious services. Sri Girish Bihari was posted as Supdt. of Police Research, CID, Lucknow. He took great pains in setting up this office. He supervised the work of the Research Section and State Crime Information Bureau very effectively. He is very keen on research work. He undertook studies on (i) “Meeting the Threat of Announced Agitations by Advance Arrest” and (ii) Law Enforcement Problems of U. P.” He attended the Course of Police Community-Relations organised by the Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science at Delhi. The paper written by Dr. Girish Bihari on “Police Public Relations and the Third Degree - A Treatise” was accepted by the Police Science Congress. Sri Girish Bihari was posted as Senior Supdt. of Police, Bareilly, in July, 1976. He was found to be an officer of outstanding ability and courage who acquitted himself admirably as an able and effective Senior Supdt. of Police. He succeeded in liquidating the notorious inter-district dacoit gang of Nathu and tackled various tricky administrative problems with confidence and vigour. In recognition of his excellent performance Sri Girish Bihari was first posted as Senior Supdt. of Police. He succeeded in liquidating the notorious inter-district dacoit gang of Nathu and tackled various tricky administrative problems with confidence and vigour. In recognition of his excellent performance Sri Girish Bihari was first posted as Senior Supdt. of Police, Lucknow, and then as Assistant Inspector General of Police, PAC, U. P. in which capacity he is performing his duties well at present. In the academic field, Sri Girish Bihari has earned the highest academic degree of Ph. D. and has working knowledge of Russian, German and French. Dr. Girish Bihari has been an officer of outstanding ability and courage who possesses professional competence of a high order. For his alround outstanding performance and brilliant record of service over a period of 17 years, I recommend that Dr. Girish Bihari may be awarded Police Medal for long and meritorious service. Certified that Dr. Girish Bihari has not been awarded Police Medal for long and meritorious service in the past. Certified that the integrity of Dr. Girish Bihari recommended for the award of Police Medal for long and meritorious service is above suspicion and that he has neither incurred censure nor was concerned in proceedings, that were censured in a Court of law. It is further certified that in respect of the conduct of the nominee underlying the present recommendation, no judicial proceedings are pending.” The petitioner has further asserted that while recommending the petitioner’s name for award of Police Medal to the Home Ministry of the Government of India the State Government had considered the respective merits of the officers of the Indian Police Service but the petitioner’s name was recommended as he was found outstanding and his service record was found to be of outstanding nature. The citation as contained in the Police Medal and having regard to the Statutes and Rules framed by the President, we are led to the irresistible conclusion that the State Government had itself found the petitioner to be of outstanding ability. The citation indicates that the State Government had fully scrutinised the petitioner’s service record and had found him to be an officer of outstanding ability and integrity. The citation indicates that the State Government had fully scrutinised the petitioner’s service record and had found him to be an officer of outstanding ability and integrity. If in 1977 the petitioner was found to be an officer of outstanding ability, how could the entries made prior to that period could be taken into account by the selection committee in holding that “on an overall evaluation of service record of the petitioner, he was found deficient in quality of leadership, lacking in firmness and maturity, needed more experience and was impulsive and indiscreet and lacked balance”, as stated by the Chief Secretary in para 5 of his affidavit. In Brijendra Singh v. Union of India, (1980-1 Serv LR 433) (Delhi) it was held that once a Police Medal is awarded to an officer for long and meritorious services, the adverse remarks, if any, in his character roll prior to that period would be rendered ineffective and those remarks cannot legitimately be taken into consideration at the time of his promotion. We are in agreement with the proposition and we, therefore, hold that the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner prior to 1977 could not be taken into account and those adverse entries were not relevant for the purpose of superseding the petitioner. 17. Before we pass to the other question, we may refer to the startling sitution which arose in this case. In reply to the petitioner’s contention that the Police Medal had been awarded to him for long and meritorious services, Sri R. C. Takru, Home Secretary, made an effort to minimise the value and effect of the award of Police Medal to the petitioner. In his anxiety to defend the action of the selection committee, Sri Takru, who was a member of the selection committee, stated in para 26 of his affidavit that the petitioner had put in more than 17 years of service and there were no reports against the petitioner’s integrity and the Inspector General of Police recommended the petitioner for the award of President’s Medal and the Government relying upon that report and without scrutiny accepted the report of the Inspector General of Police, who is senior most officer and is in charge of the State Police Organisation. Sri Takru further stated that the contents of the citation were factually incorrect as will appear from the various entries existing in the character roll of the petitioner. The averments contained in para 26 of Sri Takru’s affidavit, suggest that the petitioner did not deserve the President’s Police Medal, and he was wrongly awarded the Medal. In fact during the course of argument the learned Standing Counsel laid stress on this aspect. The President’s Medal is awarded to a police Officer on the recommendation of the Inspector General of Police and the State Government for long and meritorious service in accordance with the Statutes and Rules framed by the Government of India. The Medal is the highest decoration for a member of the Police Force and it is the aspiration of every police officer. The President being the Head of the State, awards this Medal to the Police Officers in recognition of long and meritorious service with a view to encourage efficiency in the police service. Once the President decorates a person with the Medal, it is not open to any authority to question its correctness or propriety, more so it is not open to a public servant like Sri Takru to question the correctness of the Presidential award. We are amazed at the stand taken by Sri Takru in questioning the correctness of the award of the President’s Medal to the petitioner. Sri Takru’s suggestion appeared to be that police Medal contained incorrect citation and the petitioner was not worthy of the same. His suggestion further appeared to be that the State Government had not scrutinised the petitioner’s record before making its recommendation. In our opinion it was not open to Sri Takru to make these suggestions to the Court as he was bound by the Government’s action and the Presidential award. If in the opinion of the State Government, the Medal was wrongly awarded to the petitioner, it could have approached the President for its cancellation, but till it is not cancelled the petitioner is entitled to take credit of the citation contained in the award and it is not open to the Home Secretary or to any authority to belittle the importance of the award. Sri Takru has, in our opinion, committed great impropriety in criticising the Presidential action. Sri Takru has, in our opinion, committed great impropriety in criticising the Presidential action. We are constrained to make this observation as we strongly feel that the conduct of Sri Takru was highly improper and it should engage the attention of the State Government and the Home Ministry of the Government of India. The stand taken by Sri Takru in his affidavit filed before us indicates that the selection committee did not attach any importance to the President’s Medal awarded to the petitioner. As discussed earlier the President’s Medal is highest decoration which is awarded to a police officer for long and meritorious service, and this aspect could not legally be ignored by the committee merely on the assumption that the Presidential award was wrongly given to the petitioner. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to the character roll entries of the petitioner specially the entries for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and urged that the petitioner was entitled to selection. We have perused the entries awarded to the petitioner in his character roll for the year 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80. We find that these entries highly commend the petitioner’s work and conduct. The petitioner was rated to be intelligent hard-working and an able officer of very good calibre and his relations with his subordinates and colleagues were satisfactory and over all his efficiency was found to be of outstanding nature. In some of the entries he was even recommended for promotion. Learned counsel further referred to the Chief Secretary’s letter dated 22-11-1980 (Annexure VIII to the petitioner wherein Sri T. P. Tewari, Chief Secretary, who presided over the committee which superseded the petitioner, had himself highly appreciated the petitioner’s work and conduct. Some of the entries are as follows : “1976-77 : The Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, observed : I agree with the DIG of Police, Bareilly Range. Dr. Girish Bihari is an officer of outstanding ability and courage. He spared no pains in the maintenance of law and order throughout the district of Bareilly and acquitted himself admirably as an able and effective Senior Supdt. of Police. “For the same year, the Reviewing Authority had a favourable comment to make and considered him fit for promotion in turn. The Accepting Authority gave a good report which was as follows : Dr. of Police. “For the same year, the Reviewing Authority had a favourable comment to make and considered him fit for promotion in turn. The Accepting Authority gave a good report which was as follows : Dr. Girish Bihari worked as S.S.P. Bareilly from 29-8-1976 till 31-3-1977 during the year under report. Previous to this, he was S. P. Research in the C.I.D. Organisation. In the Research Cell he made notable contribution. His evaluation of problems shows that he has a clear and analytical mind. As S.S.P. Bareilly he proved to be very successful in all sphere of work and maintained law and order in this difficult charge very well. The Chief Secretary observed as under : A first rate officer who did extremely well. The entry for the priod 9-8-1977 to 31-3-1978 given by the reporting authority is good. The reviewing authority observed, inter alia, that he has done well in both charges. It was added that on the whole he was an intelligent, smart and capable officer who gave a good account of himself during the year. He was found fit for promotion by the reviewing authority. In that year the accepting authority gave him a very good entry and the home secretary added that he agreed with the accepting authority and added that Sri Girish Behari was an outstanding officer. 19. For the period 1-4-1978 to 31-3-1979, the reporting authority gave him a good entry. The reviewing authority observed that Sri Girish Behari was an intelligent and able officer of very good calibre and had acquitted himself very creditably during the year and found him fit for promotion in turn. For the year 1979-80, the reporting authority remarked that he was a keen, well read officer and had good knowledge of his work. It was added that his power of acquiring general information was very good and his disposal was good and that his relations with his subordinates and colleagues were satisfactory and relations with public were quite good. The reviewing authority observed that Sri Girish Behari was an intelligent, balanced and capable officer who worked with single minded devotion throughout the year and found him fit for promotion in turn. For the same year, there is no remark by the accepting authority. 20. For the year 1979-80 the entry given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who was the reporting authority, was good. For the same year, there is no remark by the accepting authority. 20. For the year 1979-80 the entry given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who was the reporting authority, was good. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, Sri v. K. Saxena, observed that he agreed with the remarks given by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and observed that Sri Girish Behari was an officer of outstanding ability and he did hard work for maintaining communal peace in the district. On certain occasions, serious situations were avoided by his prompt and timely actions. He also maintained good and cordial relations with all his colleagues and the magistracy and had strict control over his subordinates. He fully deserves promotion and can be entrusted with any work of responsibility. The reviewing authority observed that he agreed with the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner and it was added that Sri Girish Behari was an intelligent, keen and capable officer who kept strict control over crime and criminals. He earned praise from all quarters during his posting as Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. 21. These entries are no doubt commendatory in nature and they speak high of the petitioner’s efficiency in service. We, however, cannot substitute our opinion for that of the selection committee. The question whether on an over all assessment of the merit of the petitioner, he was entitled for selection is within the domain of the selection committee and it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to make recommendation for promotion. We would, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the petitioner should be selected for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police as this function is exclusively assigned to the selection committee constituted under the Government of India’s order dated 26th Aug., 1976, but we cannot refrain from saying that after 1976 there was not a single adverse entry against the petitioner and his work and conduct was highly appreciated. He was congratulated by the Chief Secretary for his efficiency. There has never been any complaint against the petitioner’s integrity. 22. Learned counsel then urged that the selection committee did not apply a uniform standard in making the selection and it practised discrimination. He was congratulated by the Chief Secretary for his efficiency. There has never been any complaint against the petitioner’s integrity. 22. Learned counsel then urged that the selection committee did not apply a uniform standard in making the selection and it practised discrimination. It was urged that the Chief Secretary in his affidavit stated that in view of the adverse entries earned by the petitioner, he could not be selected as the committee on an over all evaluation of the record of the petitioner found him deficient in quality of leadership, lacking in firmness and maturity, he needed more experience and was impulsive and indiscreet, whereas it found junior officers suitable for promotion in preference to the petitioner. Sri C. L. Wasan was one of them. Learned counsel referred to the adverse entry awarded to Sri Wasan in the year 1979-80 which was present at the time the committee considered his case for promotion. There is no dispute that Sri Wasan had been selected in spite of entry for the year 1979-80, which is as under : “As S. S. P. Gorakhpur, Sri Chunni Lal Wasan worked hard and showed some initiative to keep the crime situation under control. Students problem arose quite often and its handling cannot be said to have been very satisfactory. Mid-term Parliamentary Elections passed off quite peacefully, but some sensational crime did take place in the district, such as day light murder of Sri Ravinder Kishore Sahi, M. L. A. Though this incident took place in the jurisdiction of G.R.P. Gorakhpur, yet the situation as a result of enmity between two gangs of Sri Ravinder Kishore Sahi and Harish Tewari could not be tackled effectively. On the whole an average officer.” The above entry is no doubt adverse in nature as it categorises Sri Wasan as an average officer and refers to certain incidents relating to law and order in the district of Gorakhpur which Sri Wasan failed to tackle effectively. Sri Wasan was junior to the petitioner and yet he was selected despite the aforesaid adverse entry. The confidential service record of Sri Wasan disclosed that immediately before his selection he had been found lacking in efficiency as he had failed to tackle the problems of law and order in the district of Gorakhpur and he was categorised as an average officer. The confidential service record of Sri Wasan disclosed that immediately before his selection he had been found lacking in efficiency as he had failed to tackle the problems of law and order in the district of Gorakhpur and he was categorised as an average officer. There was not a single adverse entry awarded to the petitioner after 1976. On the other hand, all the entries for the years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 show that the petitioner was found to be efficient with outstanding merit, but even then the committee did not find the petitioner suitable for promotion. We fail to appreciate the reasons. An officer who had earned adverse entries immediately prior to his promotion was selected, whereas an officer who had not earned adverse entries for the last several years had been superseded on the basis of certain old and obsolete adverse entries. The committee, in our opinion, failed to apply the uniform standard in making the selection. We do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the selection of Sri Wasan, suffice it to say that the committee acted in a discriminatory manner as it failed to apply the same yardstick in making the selection. 23. Learned Chief Standing Counsel then urged that the theory of wiping out of adverse entries could not be applied in the instant case in view of the direction of the Central Government as contained in its letter dated 24-8-1956. According to these directions, the selection committee is required to consider the whole of the character roll and service record of an officer. The directions as contained in the Government of India’s letter are statutory in nature. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1967 SC 1910 ) he urged that the directions contained in the Government of India’s letter are statutory in nature. If that be so it is not open to this Court to direct the selection committee not to consider the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner in his character roll prior to 1977 as such a direction would be contrary to the statutory provision. Having given our anxious consideration to this question we are not inclined to accept the contention. If that be so it is not open to this Court to direct the selection committee not to consider the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner in his character roll prior to 1977 as such a direction would be contrary to the statutory provision. Having given our anxious consideration to this question we are not inclined to accept the contention. Even if the directions contained in the Central Government’s letter are statutory in nature prescribing the methodology for making the selection and even if the direction that the committee should examine the entire character roll of an officer in making the selection is statutory in nature, the position remains the same. Once adverse entries are wiped off by reason of promotion of the officer to higher post those entries lose. all value and even if they form part of the service record of the officer they cannot be given effect. The committee is, therefore, required to consider the service record and consider those entries which do not stand wiped off in evaluating the comparative merits of the officers concerned. The view taken by us, therefore, would not be inconsistent with the directions issued by the Central Government. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was considered and found suitable for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police by the Union Government and his name was brought on the Central Panel of Deputy Inspector General of Police. In this connection, the petitioner made averments in the affidavit filed before us that the Government of India selected him to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police and the selection was made in accordance with the criteria laid down in R. 3 (2-A) namely, the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority, on an over all assessment of the service record of eligible officers. When this statement was made before us, a counter affidavit was filed by Sri Takru, asserting that he had no knowledge about this matter. On our persistent direction, an enquiry was made by the State Government and thereupon a supplementary affidavit was filed. When this statement was made before us, a counter affidavit was filed by Sri Takru, asserting that he had no knowledge about this matter. On our persistent direction, an enquiry was made by the State Government and thereupon a supplementary affidavit was filed. On a perusal of the supplementary affidavit of Sri takru and on a perusal of the Government of India’s letter, a copy of which was produced before us during the course of hearing, it is fully established that the Central Government had found the petitioner suitable for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police on the criteria as laid down in R. 3 (2-A) of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules. there is thus a piquant ,situation that even though the petitioner has been selected by the Union Govt. on the same principles for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police, but the State Government has superseded him on the same record of service. The petitioner has therefore a genuine grievance that the decision of the selection committee of the State Government is vitiated as it considered irrelevant material in superseding the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the selection committee acted in violation of R. 3 (2-A) of the directions contained in the Union Government letter dated 26-8-1976 inasmuch as it failed to consider relevant material available on record in judging the petitioner’s merit and suitability for promotion to the super-time scale post. According to the learned counsel, relevant material constituted (1) the petitioner’s promotion to the selection grade, (2) various commendatory entries awarded to the petitioner grading him to be an outstanding officer, (3) the award of President’s Police Medal to the petitioner for outstanding service and (4) the petitioner’s selection for appointment to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police by the Union Government, under R. 3-A read with the directions contained in the Union Government’s letter dated Aug.26, 1976, the selection committee is required to assess the comparative merits of the eligible officers on the criteria of merit with due regard to seniority. The committee was required to record reasons for superseding a senior officer in preference to a junior officer. Provision for recording reasons has been made, in order to ensure an objective assessment of the merits of the officers and to avoid arbitrariness. The committee was required to record reasons for superseding a senior officer in preference to a junior officer. Provision for recording reasons has been made, in order to ensure an objective assessment of the merits of the officers and to avoid arbitrariness. In Union of India v. M. L. Capoor, ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ) the Supreme Court while considering the necessity of recording reasons for superseding an officer held that reasons are link between material on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinion or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. It is not enough to say that preference should be given because a certain kind of process was gone through by the selection committee. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court have to be borne in mind while judging the reasons recorded by the selection committee. 25. In its report the selection committee stated that on consideration of the service record of the eligible officers it found that the petitioner was not suitable for selection and promotion while those who were selected had far more better record of service. The committee further proceeded to record reasons for supersession. The committee referred to the adverse entries awarded to the petitioner in the years 1961 1963, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1974 and 1975-76 and it also referred to the complaint made by the District Magistrate, Varansi, against the petitioner. The report of the selection committee, however, does not indicate that it took into consideration the petitioner’s promotion to the selection grade, the laudatory remarks contained in his character roll, the award of President’s Medal or his selection by the Union Government for appointment to the Post of Deputy Inspector General of Police. The reasons, Is disclosed, only contain substance of the adverse entries only. The committee failed to state reasons in a manner to disclose how the petitioner’s record was bad in relation to (sic) Selection Committee does not refer to any of the matters which were in petitioners favour, which certainly indicated his outstanding merit in service. the reason given by the committee was uniform which could be applied to any Officer. The committee failed to state reasons in a manner to disclose how the petitioner’s record was bad in relation to (sic) Selection Committee does not refer to any of the matters which were in petitioners favour, which certainly indicated his outstanding merit in service. the reason given by the committee was uniform which could be applied to any Officer. The reason given by the committee does not indicate that the relevant matters were considered by the committee. Since the committee was required to take into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner, there was no reason for the committee not to consider the laudatory remarks made in favour of the petitioner in his service record, his selection to the selection grade and the award of President’s Police Medal and his selection by the Union Government to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police. These were relevant matters which went a long way in showing the efficiency and merit of the petitioner. The selection committee has not made any reference to these matters in its report nor is there any averment in the affidavit of the Chief Secretary or the Home Secretary, the two members of the selection committee. The directions contained in the Government letter dated 26th Aug., 1976, required the committee to consider the entire service record of the petitioner. The committee was under a legal duty to consider the relevant matters as discussed above. Since the committee failed to consider the petitioner’s case in accordance with the directions of the Union Government its recommendation for superseding the petitioner was vitiated. We need not advert to the question that violation of even administrative instructions having statutory force is enforceable in a court of law. In this connection we would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. P. Joseph, ( AIR 1973 SC 303 ), where it was held that an administrative order confers justiciable right provided it is statutory in nature. The directions contained in the Union Government’s letter dated 26th Aug., 1976 are statutory in nature as was held by the Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. Union of India, ( AIR 1967 SC 1910 ). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the selection committee acted in violation of the statutory directions contained in the Union Government’s letter dated 26th Aug.. 1976. which vitiates its recommendations. 26. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the selection committee acted in violation of the statutory directions contained in the Union Government’s letter dated 26th Aug.. 1976. which vitiates its recommendations. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the recommendations of the selection committee were vitiated on account of the mala fides of Sri. Bhurey Lal. In this connection, it was urged that while the petitioner was posted as Senior Superintendent of Police at Varanasi sri Bhurey Lal, I.A.S. was posted as District Magistrate. On certain administrative matters there was serious difference of opinion between the two officers which led to acrimony. The District Magistrate made complaint against the petitioner, in pursuance whereof further enquiries were being made. The petitioner has asserted that Sri Bhurey Lal was annoyed and since at the relevant time when the petitioners case was being considered by the selection committee, he was posted as the Special Secretary to the Chief Minister, he influenced the members of the committee for petitioners supersession. In the first place, Sri Bhurey Lal, has not been made a party to the petition. In the absence of Sri Bhurey Lal no allegation of a mala fide can be considered. Moreover, the material placed before the Court by the petitioner is not sufficient to record any finding of mala fides. The plea of mala fide, therefore, fails. 27. In view of the above discussion we hold that the recommendation of the selection committee for superseding the petitioner was illegal and for that reason the petitioners supersession is also rendered illegal. We, therefore, allow the petition and quash the recommendation of the selection committee in so far as it relates to the petitioner’s supersession and direct the State Government to consider the petitioner’s case forthwith for promotion to the super-time scale post in the Indian police service in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition Allowed.