JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - Petitioner seeks quashing of the notification dated 21-1-1988 (Annexure "15" to the writ petition) to the extent it relates to panel for the post of Principal of Digamber Jain Girls Inter College, Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar, being made by the Commission, Respondent No. 1, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's working as principal of the said College. 2. The facts as, briefly, stated are that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 both were lecturer in the aforesaid College. Km. Prem Sakhi Nigam, who was Principal of the College, retired on 30th June, 1986, and then she with a view to causing harm to the petitioner a senior most lecturer in the College, handed over charge to the respondent No. 2. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools/Authorised Controller, who by the order dated 5th July, 1986, directed the respondent No. 2 to hand over charge to the petitioner. This is how the petitioner became an ad hoc Principal of the College on 5th July, 1986. 3. It is averred that outgoing Principal favoured the respondent No. 2 and she bore grudge against the petitioner and, therefore, she had made character roll entries in favour of the respondent No. 2 and gave mala fide adverse entries to the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it is averred that none of the adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner, but they had been sent to the Commission while the name of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were forwarded for being considered for the post of Principal. 4. When the matter came up before this Court, then the Commission was directed to make the record available for perusal of the parties and then the petitioner discovered that adverse entries relating to the years 1969-70 to 1977-78 and 1979-80 to 1984-85, except the entry for the year 1981-82, which was later expunged, were not communicated to the petitioner; and that representation, which was made against the adverse entry of the year 1978-79 by the petitioner, was rejected. 5. Then the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit III making these averments. 6. The respondent No. 2 in her supplementary-counter-affidavit denied the averment of the petitioner that the aforesaid entries were not communicated to her. 7. 5. Then the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit III making these averments. 6. The respondent No. 2 in her supplementary-counter-affidavit denied the averment of the petitioner that the aforesaid entries were not communicated to her. 7. In the supplementary-counter-affidavit filed by the Commission, it is stated in paragraph 7 that entries relating to the years 1969-70 to 1984-85 were not communicated to the petitioner. Regarding entry of the year 1978-79, it is stated that it was written on 13-1-1979, i.e. much before the end of the year and then again 'final annual entry' for the same year was made on 22-5-1979, which according to the Commission was not communicated to the petitioner. Contrary to this, the petitioner averred in the supplementary-affidavit that a representation against the entry of 1978-79 was made, which was rejected. Having discovered the position that 'final annual entry' of 1978-79 was not communicated to the petitioner, as stated by the Commission in paragraph 7 of the supplementary-counter-affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner urged that he would go by the version of the Commission, which recorded the correct state of affairs regarding the communication of the entry and that he gave up the plea taken up in the petition that representation was made against that entry, which was rejected. Any way, this will be considered later at appropriate place. 8. In paragraph 8 of the supplementary-counter-affidavit, the Commission states that adverse entries but not communicated, are treated as non-existing and for such each entry half mark is allocated and, therefore, for the first ten years (1969-70 to 1978-79) only five marks were allocated. 9. In paragraph 10 of the said affidavit, the Commission further stated: The entries for the years 1979-80 to 1984-85 (6 years) were also adverse but not communicated as such the petitioner was awarded only 6 marks, i.e., half of the total marks of 12 applicable for the good entries treating the said entries to be honest. 10. In paragraph 12 of the said affidavit the Commission further averred: However, it is pertinent to point out here that the adverse entries in no case or circumstances can be treated as good or satisfactory for the reason that they were not communicated but the same were rightly evaluated as honest entries..... 11. 10. In paragraph 12 of the said affidavit the Commission further averred: However, it is pertinent to point out here that the adverse entries in no case or circumstances can be treated as good or satisfactory for the reason that they were not communicated but the same were rightly evaluated as honest entries..... 11. Though it is averred by the respondent No. 2 that the entries of the aforesaid years were communicated to the petitioner, but this averment is sans material much less cogent material. The Commission itself having seen the record proceeded on the footing that none of these entries was communicated to the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 having failed to disclose the basis of averment that all these entries were duly communicated to the petitioner, her bald assertion cannot be accepted. A vain attempt was made by the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 by showing the service book of the petitioner, which was brought in sealed cover by Counsel for the Commission, Upon perusal of the service book, it appeared that there was no acknowledgement of the receipt of the adverse entry by the petitioner, but a slip being pasted in the service book of the petitioner contained a statement of some one else that adverse entry was tendered to the petitioner in her presence, but she refused to accept the same. This is contrary to the procedure. Regulation 72 of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, states that in the case where an adverse entry is made in character roll of a person in a particular year, the entire entry of the year, both adverse and favourable, shall be communicated to him within 30 days of the making of such an entry and an acknowledgement obtained. Information about the with-holding of the integrity certificate shall be communicated likewise. Assuming for argument sake, but not accepting that the petitioner refused to accept the adverse entry, there is no procedure for obtaining a witness of some one to that effect, but as Regulation 72 enjoins upon the authority concerned to communicate adverse entry to the person concerned within 30 days of making it, then it should have been served through registered post, in case the petitioner refused to take it. There is nothing to show that the authorities concerned resorted to this procedure and, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the version of the Commission. Moreover, for the decision of the case, the question whether the petitioner refused to take adverse entry when tendered to her is not relevant, but what is relevant is as to how non-communicated entries, the fact of which is accepted by the Commission, are to be evaluated. 12. Then substantial question for consideration is whether the Commission was right in allocating half mark to each entry in the first ten years from 1969-70 to 1978-79 and one mark each for the subsequent entries from 1979-80 to 1984-85 treating them as honest, as according to the Commission they were not communicated. It is not disputed that while assessing a candidate for the post of Principal, whose name is forwarded to the Commission by the Management, 30 marks are allocated for the service record of the candidate and 45 marks are allocated for interview, total being 75 marks. It is also said that 20 years service record is seen, if a candidate has put in that much or more service and if a candidate has put in lessor service, then service record of all the years is considered and for first 10 years of service record, each character roll entry carries one mark and the subsequent character roll entries carry two marks each. In paragraph 12 of the supplementary-counter-affidavit, it is averred by the Commission that entries not being communicated are treated to be honest and they are treated neither good nor satisfactory for the purpose of awarding the marks and such entry carries only 50% marks, i.e., each entry of the first 10 years earns only half mark out of one and subsequent entry one each out of two and following this basis the petitioner was awarded live marks in the first 10 years and six marks for the subsequent six years. It is not disputed that difference between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, a selected candidate, is only of 9 marks. It is not disputed that difference between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, a selected candidate, is only of 9 marks. Submission for the petitioner is that if for the first nine years from 1969-70 to 1977-78 (entry for 1978-79 being adverse according to the petitioner) and entries for 1979-80 to 1984-85 (bad entry for 1981-82 having been expunged as per the petitioner) are taken to be good as they are honest as per the Commission as not being communicated, then the petitioner will get marks out of first 10 years and 12 marks for subsequent 6 years and thus getting advantage of 10 marks resulting into better score than respondent No. 2. 13. Submission of Sri Yog, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that there is no justification to award half mark each for the first ten years and one mark each for the subsequent six years for the service record, as entries not communicated to the petitioner cannot be taken to be adverse or bad. It is urged by him that if such entries were communicated to the petitioner, she would have represented against them and then possibilities were there of the entry being expunged, or retained or modified. But no such result could be speculated when entries were not, at all, communicated. Depreciated evaluation by giving half mark each for the first 10 years and one mark each for the subsequent years can be made only when there is adverse or bad entry against a candidate. From paragraph 12 of the supplementary-counter-affidavit of the Commission it is manifest that a good or satisfactory entry carries full mark, i.e., one mark each for the first ten years and 2 marks each for the subsequent years. 14. Chief question for consideration in this case is how the petitioner can be down graded in so far as the evaluation of her service record is concerned, when no such entry according to the Commission was ever communicated to her. Marks can be deducted only when an entry is bad or adverse in nature. When an entry is not communicated and is treated to honest, as contended by the Commission, then question is how such entry can be evaluated only at 50%. It is trite law that adverse entry not being communicated cannot be treated as adverse. Marks can be deducted only when an entry is bad or adverse in nature. When an entry is not communicated and is treated to honest, as contended by the Commission, then question is how such entry can be evaluated only at 50%. It is trite law that adverse entry not being communicated cannot be treated as adverse. Converse position of there being no adverse or bad entry is the good entry and, therefore, there is no justification to deduct any mark while evaluating the service record, for the reason that adverse entry was not communicated. The petitioner cannot be put to disadvantage for no fault of her. It is the Management or the authority concerned who is to be blamed for non-communication. When after representation, if opportunity were afforded to the petitioner, adverse entry could either he sustained, expunged or modified, then deduction of any mark would be wholly unjust, improper or unreasonable on the ground that there was adverse entry, but remained communicated. Deduction from the marks allocated for the service record postulates adverseness, stigma and lack of be fittingness. If the non-communicated entry is treated to be honest, as contended by the Commission in the supplementary-counter-affidavit, then it is difficult to comprehend as to on what basis marks allocated to service record have been deducted. The contention of the Commission is fallacious, inasmuch as it treats non-communicated entry as honest and yet deducts mark. Adverse entry not being communicated, cannot be characterised as adverse entry and if there is no adverse entry, then the golden rule is that entry for a given year should be treated to be good entry and should be evaluated as such. If this is not done, then it will open a flood gate to arbitrariness on the part of the authorities empowered to write the character rolls. An authority having biased mind may write adverse character roll entry and then sit tight over it making no efforts to communicate it to the concerned person and then sending such entries to the Commission for evaluation, which will mechanically award 50% marks allocated for service record and thereby putting a given candidate at a great disadvantage vis-a-vis the other candidates, whom adverse entries are given but communicated and thereby affording an opportunity of being represented against the adverse entries, which on representation, if expunged, will early full mark. 15. 15. For the reasons panel being made by the Commission for Digamber Jain Girls Inter College under the notification dated 21-1-1988 (Annexure "15" to the writ petition) deserves to be quashed. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 urged that there are certain entries being adverse in nature, but were not communicated to her as well and that in regard to such entries both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 should be given harmonious treatment and that the error, if any, should not be corrected only in the case of the petitioner. It is, therefore, deemed proper to remit the matter to the Commission to reconsider the adverse entries having not been communicated to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 2 in the light of the observations made above and redo the evaluation accordingly. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The notification dated 21-1-1988 (Annexure "15" to the writ petition) issued by the Commission, respondent No. 1, in so far as it relates to the panel being made for the post of Principal of Digamber Jain Girls Inter College, Kairana, is quashed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to redo the evaluation of the service record of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon it by the petitioner and till the re-evaluation as aforesaid the petitioner will continue as ad hoc principal of the aforesaid College.