JUDGMENT - SUGLA T.D., J.:—Respondent No. 1. herein is the original petitioner. He was appointed Probationary Assistant in the appellant bank in the year 1956 on being selected after a competitive examination and interviews conducted on All India basis. During all this period he got all due promotions so much so that on 19th February, 1981 he was selected for the post of General Manager and was confirmed in that post on 1st March, 1982. In a further selection held on 8th June, 1983 for the post of Chief General Manager, however, 9 officers including a few officers junior to the petitioner were selected. The petitioner's claim was considered but he was not selected on the ground that his confidential report for the calendar year 1982 was adverse. 2. A petition was filed in this Court against his non-selection for the post of Chief General Manager in the selection held on 8-6-1983. The petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 17-9-1985. 3. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was subsequently selected for the post of Chief General Manager in the year 1985 and is continuing as such in that position. His case, however, is that his non-selection in the selection held on 8-6-1983 is bad as the adverse report on the basis of which he was not selected had not been communicated to him until 11-6-1983 and in any event the representation made by him there against on 27th December, 1983 had not till then been rejected. The learned Single Judge, as stated earlier, allowed the petition and directed the appellant bank to consider the case of the petitioner afresh without taking into consideration the adverse remarks made against him by Shri Subramanian for the calendar year 1982. 4. The appellant bank is in appeal. It is reiterated by Shri Kapadia, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was rejected by the Deputy Managing Director vide his letter dated 3-1-1984. 4. The appellant bank is in appeal. It is reiterated by Shri Kapadia, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was rejected by the Deputy Managing Director vide his letter dated 3-1-1984. Inviting then our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of (R.L. Butail v. Union of India and others)1, 1971(2) S.C.R. 55 , and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Y.V. Thatte v. State of Maharashtra and another)2, 1984 Mh.L.J. 19, Shri Kapadia contended that even if it is assumed that the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was not rejected in terms, the appeal will have to be allowed with a direction to the appellants to consider the representation afresh and only in the event of the petitioner's representation succeeding, the selection made on 8-6-1983 would have to be reviewed. Shri Sawant, on the other hand, urged that it was not a simple case of non-consideration of a representation against adverse remarks. The adverse remarks given by the Reporting Officer were not even reviewed in this case by the reviewing authority. Remarks which are adverse cannot be taken into account in the matter of selection for a higher post at all unless the Reviewing Officer had approved them. It is submitted that the petitioner's case would, therefore, fall within the ratio of this court's judgment in the case of (Omprakash Brahamanand Pahajo v. The State of Maharashtra and others)3, in Writ Petition No. 3746 of 1982 decided on 12th September, 1984. This Court had quashed the promotions made in that case and the respondents were directed to consider the case of all eligible persons including the petitioners afresh without taking into consideration the adverse remarks. Shri Sawant also supported his submission by referring to this court's judgment in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Madhav Khanderao Ambikar)4, 1986(53) F.L.R. 346 to which one of us Bharucha, J., is a party. 5. The Full Bench in Thatte's case (supra), it may be stated, considered not only the Supreme Court decision in Butail's case but also many other Supreme Court decisions including the case of (Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab)5, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1622. 5. The Full Bench in Thatte's case (supra), it may be stated, considered not only the Supreme Court decision in Butail's case but also many other Supreme Court decisions including the case of (Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab)5, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1622. The Full Bench has held that instructions as to, making available the adverse report is not an empty formality and that representations made in respect of such adverse reports have to be considered. However, this does not mean that the moment it is shown that adverse report is not communicated or that representation made thereagainst is pending and not rejected, the result must automatically follow that the action of non-promotion on the basis of such an adverse report must stand vitiated. Even if at the material time when the matter is before the Court, it is shown that no injustice has really been caused for reasons such as the representation against the adverse remarks had been rejected in the meantime, the Court is not bound to interfere in such cases. In the even it is found that representation against adverse remarks is not disposed of, the Court may in the first instance direct that representation against adverse remarks should first be disposed of and then the Selection Committee be directed to consider whether the appellant should be included in the selectional list or not which decision is to be taken by applying the test of merit and suitability-cum-seniority. It was held that the case of reversion from an officiating higher post and the case of non-promotion must stand on a different footing even though the common factor in both the cases was a claim to a higher post. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhav Khanderao Ambikar, the petitioner had already been promoted on temporary basis to a higher post and the consideration of the uncommunicated adverse remarks had resulted in his reversion. Adverse remarks were never communicated in the case of Omprakash Brahamanand Pahajo v. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 3746 of 1982 decided on 12th September, 1984 reported in 1985(2) Bom.C.R. 92 . The above two cases are, therefore, not applicable in this case. 6. This takes us to the merits of the case. Adverse remarks were never communicated in the case of Omprakash Brahamanand Pahajo v. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 3746 of 1982 decided on 12th September, 1984 reported in 1985(2) Bom.C.R. 92 . The above two cases are, therefore, not applicable in this case. 6. This takes us to the merits of the case. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that Shri Subramanian's adverse report against the petitioner for the calendar year 1982 was not mala fide as when he had made the report on 31-12-1982, he was not even aware that the petitioner had submitted any memorandum against him before the higher authorities. The bank having not placed any material to show that the Selection Committee had any material other than the impugned adverse remarks which justified non-selection of the petitioner on merits before the learned Judge or before us, we must hold that the petitioner was not selected by the Selection Committee for promotion in the selection held on 8-6-1983 upon the basis of the impugned adverse remarks only. As regards the contention that the representation made by the petitioner against the adverse remarks was rejected by the Deputy Managing Director vide letter dated 3-1-1984, on going through the said letter we hold that it is not quite correct to say that the representation was rejected by the Deputy Managing Director. The relevant portion of the letter reads as under : “The short-comings observed by the reporting officer were pointed out to you with a view to giving you an opportunity to overcome the deficiencies so that you are in a position to improve your overall performance.” 7. In our judgment the case herein squarely falls within the ratio of Full Bench judgment of this Court (supra). It is a case in which consideration of uncommunicated adverse remarks has resulted in non-promotion of the petitioner. The representation made by the petitioner after the adverse remarks were communicated to him has not yet been disposed of. In the circumstances, it is not possible to say whether any injustice has really been caused to the petitioner. Such a conclusion can be arrived at only after his representation is considered and the adverse remarks expunged. This was the course, it may be stated, adopted by the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh's case. In the circumstances, it is not possible to say whether any injustice has really been caused to the petitioner. Such a conclusion can be arrived at only after his representation is considered and the adverse remarks expunged. This was the course, it may be stated, adopted by the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh's case. Accordingly, we direct that the Managing Director of the appellant bank will take a decision on the petitioner's representation already made or he might make hereafter within 4 weeks therefrom. In the event of the representation succeeding, the Election Committee is directed to reconsider the selection of the petitioner alongwith the persons selected on 8-6-1983 within 4 weeks of the date on the decision of the representation. In the event of his selection as aforesaid, the petitioner will have to be given seniority on the basis of the deemed date of selection, i.e. 8-6-1983. 8. No rule, resolution or authority having been shown to us in support of the contention that adverse remarks given by a reporting officer must always be reviewed by the next higher officer, it is not possible to accept Shri Sawant's contention that unreviewed adverse remarks cannot be taken into account. At best it may also be a circumstance to be taken into account while considering representation of the respondent against adverse remarks. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed pro tanto. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.