S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This appeal under S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed by the petitioner, whose writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by order dated June 7,1984 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The material facts leading to this appeal may succinctly be stated: 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari in the Revenue Department, on October 31, 1952. He was promoted as Inspector, Land Records vide order dated June 26, 1963. Subsequently, he was promoted as Naib Tehsildar on adhoc basis on April 20, 1978 but he was later on reverted from this post. Thereafter, vide order (Annexure-1) dated July 9, 1979, he was appointed to* the post of officiating Naib Tehsildar in Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Cadre on purely urgent temporary basis for a period of six months or till regularly selected candidates in accordance with the method prescribed under rr. 24 and 28 of the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Rules, 1956 (for short the Rules hereinafter) are made available whichever is earlier. It was also provided in the order (Annexure-1) that the officiating appointment shall stand terminated on the expiry of the period mentioned therein unless specifically extended further by the competent authority and with the concurrence of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, where necessary. The Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the D.P.C.) met on April 6/7. 1981 and on the recommendation of the D.P.C., the petitioner-appellant came to be promoted as Naib Tehsildar under r. 28-A(ll) of the Rules. Another D.P.C. met on July 21/22, 1982. The petitioner-appellant was selected by the D.P.C. under r. 28-A (11) of the Rules for the post of Naib Tehsildar. This was, however, subject to review and revision. The order was made in pursuance of the D P.C. on September 24, 1982 and that has been placed on record as Annexure-3 Thereafter, by order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984, the petitioner-appellant was ordered to be reverted from the post of Naib Tehsildar on the ground that he has not been selected by the D.P.C. which met on February 23/24, 1984. The petitioner has filed photostat copy of the adverse remarks (Annexure-5) which were made in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83. The petitioner submitted representation (Annexure-6) against the adverse remarks on January 31, 1984. The petitioner has filed photostat copy of the adverse remarks (Annexure-5) which were made in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83. The petitioner submitted representation (Annexure-6) against the adverse remarks on January 31, 1984. According to the petitioner, the said representaion has not been disposed of so far. It has also been stated in para 6 of the writ petition that by order (Annexure-7) dated October 12, 1982, he was put under suspension on the ground that a departmental enquiry was contemplated against him. The suspension order was revoked by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan vide its order (Annexure-8) dated January 14,1983. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by Annexure-9 dated February 14, 1983 by the Chairman, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan that an enquiry under r. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the C.C.A. Rules) is proposed to be held against him on the charges detailed in the statement of changes and explained in the statement of allegations enclosed therewith. According to the petitioner, no substantive progress has been made in the enquiry so far and the order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984 has been passed because of the pendency of the departmental enquiry and the adverse remarks made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83. The writ petition was filed on June 5, 1984 for quashing the order (Annexure-4) dated May 17. 1984 as it is invalid. A prayer was made that the respondents may be forbidden from giving effect to the order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984. A direction was also sought against them to put back the petitioner on the post of Naib Tehsil-dar, as he had never been reverted. Consequential benefits were also sought. 4. The learned single Judge by his order dated June 7, 1984 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner-appellant is facing a departmental enquiry under r. 16 of the CCA. Rules. The learned Judge observed as under: "If the Departmental Promotion Committee in its wisdom did not think it proper to include the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates for substantive appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar, there is no reason for this Court to interfere. Rules. The learned Judge observed as under: "If the Departmental Promotion Committee in its wisdom did not think it proper to include the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates for substantive appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar, there is no reason for this Court to interfere. In case, the petitioner is exonerated of the charge, he will undoubtedly have a right to approach the competent authority for re-consideration, if he has not been selected on this ground." Aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant has filed this appeal. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents. In pursuance of which, appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondents. In reply to the stay petition, on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the D.P.C. considered the suitability of the persons for the post of Naib Tehsildar in its meeting which was held on February 23/24, 1984 and the petitioner-appellant was found unsuitable for the post of Naib Tehsildar on account of adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports for the years 1977-78 and 1982-83 and a departmental enquiry under r. 16 of the CCA. Rules which was pending against him. As the petitioner-appellant was found unsuitable, he was reverted to the post of Inspector Land Records by order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984. The reversion was sought to be justified in the reply. 6. A rejoinder to the reply to the stay petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, in which, it was stated that no adverse entries alleged to have been made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1977-78 were ever served upon the petitioner-appellant and as such, he had no occasion to make a representation against it. It was also stated in the rejoinder that despite the adverse entries for the year 1977-78, the petitioner-appellant was promoted as Naib Tehsildar and so also on the recommendation of the D.P.C as well. In these circumstances, it was not open to the D.P.C. to have found the petitioner-appellant unsuitable on the basis of the adverse entries for the year 1977-78. It was also stated in the rejoinder that pendency of the enquiry under r. 16 of the CCA. Rules cannot operate as a bar for the promotion of the petitioner-appellant on any count. 7. It was also stated in the rejoinder that pendency of the enquiry under r. 16 of the CCA. Rules cannot operate as a bar for the promotion of the petitioner-appellant on any count. 7. On August 22, 1984, it was ordered that the appeal shall be heard finally at the admission stage. 8. We have heard Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, learned Additional Government Advocate. 9. While assailing the order dated May 17. 1984 of the learned single Judge, it was urged by Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellant that the order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is illegal and invalid, for. the petitioner-appellant could not be adjudged unsuitable on the basis of (l) adverse entries made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1977-78; (ii) adverse entries made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83; and (ii) pendency of the departmental enquiry under r. 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. 10. On the other hand, Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, learned Additional Govt. Advocate contended that the petitioner-appellant was rightly adjudged unsuitable for the post of Naib Tehsildar and, therefore, there was no option but to revert him to the original post of Inspector, Land Records. 11. We propose to take up the three grounds ad seriatim, on the basis of which, according to the respondents, the petitioner-appellant was found unsuitable by the D.P.C. It may be stated that adverse entries relating to the year 1977-78 was not communicated to the petitioner and the question is without communication and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner-appellant to make the representation against it and before deciding that representation, whether it could be acted upon. It was submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the record which was available with him showed that so far as the adverse entries for the year 1977-78 are concerned, there is an endorsement that it was not communicated and from this, the learned Additional Government Advocate wanted us to infer that it was not taken into consideration by the D.P.C while adjudging the petitioner-appellant unsuitable for the post of Naib Tehsildar. So far as the adverse entries relating to the year 1982-83 are concerned, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that it was taken into consideration by the D.P.C. though the representation filed by the petitioner-appellant against that is pending and it has not been disposed of as yet. 12. In Nareshwar Lal Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan (1) the petitioners were officiating as Head Masters when they were reverted as Assistant Teachers on the ground that there were adverse entries against them in their 1 confidential rolls for a particular year. The adverse entries were not communicated to them and it was such as could be explained, if an opportunity had been given. It was held by a learned single Judge of this Court that it was essential that the petitioners should have been apprised of the adverse entries before their reversion was ordered. It was further held that the case of the petitioners had not been properly considered and there has been violation of Art. 16 of the Constitution. It was observed as follows: "Therefore, if adverse entries which will be germane to the consideration of promotion of the Government servants concerned exist in his record of service, then it is but fair that at some stage the Government servant concerned be afforded an opportunity of having his say against such adverse entries. Without this the formality of communicating the adverse entries to the Government servant will be meaningless. Such un-explained entries being placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee might have some damaging effect in the assessment of the Government servants merits for promotion." "It is true, question of promotion depends on a variety of factors and considerations and while one factor may pull in one opposite direction and at times the overall effect of all the factors bearing on the merits of a Govt. servant for promotion has to be taken. It may not, therefore, be possible to hold in every case that merely because the adverse entries were there and there was no opportunity of making a representation by the Government servant, the promotion will necessarily be vitiated because there may be various other factors besides adverse entries. In a particular case, the nature of the entry itself may be quite vocal and there may not be much to be said against such entry. In a particular case, the nature of the entry itself may be quite vocal and there may not be much to be said against such entry. For example, it may be that it is based on some findings of a court or a departmental body. Therefore, while I do not wish to lay down as a general proposition that lack of communication of adverse entries will necessarily result in the case of a Government servant being not fairly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, one can certainly conceive of cases where lack of communication of such adverse entries may result in the case of a particular civil servant being not considered fairly and justly." While considering the question of promotion, the fact of non-communication of an adverse report in a confidential roll was examined in Gurdial Singh vs. State of Punjab (2). His Lordship Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. speaking for the Court made the following weighty observations: "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. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified. In these circumstances, it is difficult to support the non-issuance of the integrity certificate to the appellant. The Conine of reaction began with the adverse report and the infirmity in the link of causation is that no one has yet decided whether that report was justified. In these circumstances, it is difficult to support the non-issuance of the integrity certificate to the appellant. The Conine of reaction began with the adverse report and the infirmity in the link of causation is that no one has yet decided whether that report was justified. We cannot speculate, in the absence of a proper pleading, whether the appellant was not found suitable otherwise, that is to say, for reasons other than those connected with the non-issuance of an integrity certificate to him." In the above excerpted portion the effect of non-consideration of the explanation for coming to the conclusion whether the adverse report is justified has also been emphasised. 13. From the aforesaid two authorities, it is clear that when a particular adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report has material bearing for adjudging the suitability of a person for the purpose of promotion, it cannot be acted upon to deny the promotion to him, until unless it is communicated to him and an opportunity is afforded to explain it. In this case, the adverse entry for the year 1977-78 was not communicated to the petitioner and as is clear from the reply to the stay petition filed on behalf of the respondents, it was taken into consideration to deny the promotional opportunity to the petitioner-appellant. It could not be acted upon as it was not communicated to the petitioner appellant and he had no opportunity to explain it. 14. There is another aspect of the matter. By order (Annexure-1) dated July 9, 1979, the petitioner-appellant was appointed to the post of officiating Naib Tehsildar in the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Cadre under r. 31 of the Rules. The D.P.C. recommended the petitioner for promotion as Naib Tehsildar under r. 28-A (11) of the Rules. He was selected subject to review and revision as is borne out from Annexure-2 dated May 25, 1981. Subsequequently, another D.P.C which met on July 21/22, 1982 selected him under r. 28-A (11) of the Rules for the post of Naib Tehsildar. In pursuance of the recommendations of the D.P.C, the order (Annexure-3) dated September 24, 1982 was issued. He was selected subject to review and revision as is borne out from Annexure-2 dated May 25, 1981. Subsequequently, another D.P.C which met on July 21/22, 1982 selected him under r. 28-A (11) of the Rules for the post of Naib Tehsildar. In pursuance of the recommendations of the D.P.C, the order (Annexure-3) dated September 24, 1982 was issued. It is thus, clear that the adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1977-78 did not come in the way of the petitioner-appellant for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar, as the orders (Annexures-1, 2 and 3 were made after the above adverse entries. In these circumstances, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that this adverse entry for the year 1977-78 was condoned, for, despite aforesaid adverse entries, the petitioner was promoted. 15. In Prem Chand Sanghi vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 144 of 1973, decided on March 11, 1980 by Jaipur Bench, Jaipur), while accepting the contention that the appellant in that case was promoted inspite of the adverse entries and as such, the adverse antries should be deemed to have been was had out, it was observed as under: "After the stoppage of these increments, the appellant was promoted to various posts as has been stated above. Stoppage of increments without any cumulative effect in the year 1951-52 can hardly be made a basis for compulsory retirement of an employee in the year 1972 especially when from the posts of Overseer he has been selected as an Assistant Engineer by the Rajasthan Public Service Commissions and then promoted right up to the post of Superintending Engineer." Even from this point of view, the adverse entries for the year 1977-78 could not have been taken into consideration for adjudging the suitability of the petitioner appellant to the post of Naib Tehsildar. So far as the adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83 is concerned, it is not denied that the petitioner-appellant submitted representation and that representation was not decided prior to the passing of the order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984. The authorities concerned could only decide as to whether the adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83 is justified on a consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner-appellant. The authorities concerned could only decide as to whether the adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83 is justified on a consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant had been adjudged unsuitable on the basis of the adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1982-83 without decision of the representation submitted by him in regard to it. He could not be adjudged unsuitable without deciding the question whether that adverse entry was justified. Reference has already been made to Gurdial Singhs case (supra). 16. The only ground that remains is whether on account of the pendency of the enquiry under r. 16 of the CCA. Rules, the petitioner-appellant could be adjudged unsuitable to the post of Naib Tehsildar by the D.P.C In fact, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that if the D.P.C. did not think it proper to include the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates for substantive appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar because the departmental enquiry under r. 16 of the C.C.A. Rules was pending against him, there is no reason to interfere. It is correct that by memorandum (Annexure-9) dated February 14, 1983, an enquiry under r. 16 of the C.C.A. Rules on the charges detailed in the statement of charges and explained in the statement of allegations was proposed to be held against the petitioner-appellant. It appears from para 8 of the writ petition, that in response to the letter of the petitioner for supply of copies of documents, he was permitted to inspect the records. Nothing further has been done in the departmental enquiry so far. In reply to the stay petition, what has been stated is that the pendency of the enquiry under r. 16 of the C.C.A. Rules was taken into consideration at the meeting of the D.P C. By order (Annexure-7) dated October 12,1982, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that the departmental enquiry was contemplated against him. On review, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan revoked the suspension, by order (Annexure-8) dated January 14, 1983 and he was posted as Naib Tehsildar and after a month, the memorandum (Annexure-9) proposing to hold an enquiry was issued. On review, the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan revoked the suspension, by order (Annexure-8) dated January 14, 1983 and he was posted as Naib Tehsildar and after a month, the memorandum (Annexure-9) proposing to hold an enquiry was issued. In support of his contention that the petitioner could not be denied promotional opportunities on the ground of pendency of the enquiry under r. 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon State of Rajasthan vs. Amolak Chand (3). The facts in State of Rajasthans case (supra) are, of course, distinguishable but reasoning given therein may usefully be adopted. It will be useful to excerpt the following from the report: "It is pertinent to note that the matter involving the enquiry against the non-petitioner referred to the year 1970-71. Charge-sheet was framed on 21.4.80. The reply was filed by the non-petitioner on 24.8.81. The Enquiry Officer has been appointed on 13.5.82. The learned members of the Tribunal were of the opinion that the enquiry report has not reached the hands of the Disciplinary Authority. They, therefore, formed an opinion that the perusal of the record of the case showed that the view that the enquiry was likely to result in the imposition of a major penalty upon the appellant has been taken in the absence of any enquiry report and as such it cannot be a finding with any legal justification." In our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the petitioner-appellant could not be adjudged unsuitable for promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar on the ground that an enquiry under r. 16 of the C.C.A. Rules is ponding against him and for that matter, he could not have been reverted to the post of Inspector, Land Records. 17. R. 28-A of the Rules deals with revised criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to junior, senior and other posts encadered in the service. R. 28-A (15) of the Rules is as follows: "(15). 17. R. 28-A of the Rules deals with revised criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to junior, senior and other posts encadered in the service. R. 28-A (15) of the Rules is as follows: "(15). The Government may issue instructions for provisionally dealing with promotions, appointments or other ancillary matters in an equitable and fair manner of persons who may be under suspension or against whom departmental proceeding is under progress, at the time promotions are considered to a post to which they are eligible or would have been eligible but for such suspension or pendency of such enquiry or proceedings." The Government has not issued any instructions under r. 28-A (15) of the Rules regarding the persons against whom the enquiry is pending. The petitioner-appellant is undoubtedly eligible for it. Therefore, from this point of view also, the petitioner could not be adjudged unsuitable on account of pendency of the enquiry against him. 18. We are satisfied that on the basis of the aforesaid three grounds, the order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984 in so far as it relates to the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector, Land Records cannot be sustained and the learned Single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition. 19. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order dated June 7, 1984 dismissing the writ petition passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellent is partly accepted and the order (Annexure-4) dated May 17, 1984 in so far as it relates to the petitioner-appellants reversion is quashed. The respondents will be free to consider the case of the petitioner-appellant for promotion according to law but till then the petitioner-appellant shall be restored to his position prior to his reversion. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.