JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. He joined the service of Rajasthan Public Service Commission at Ajmer as L.D.C. on 13.11.62. He was promoted as U.D.C., then as Assistant and then as Section Officer. The last promotion was given to him on 14.9.83 and was confirmed on that post with effect from 13.3.85. He is thus, holding the post of Section Officer in a substantive capacity in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') . A final seniority list of the Gazetted Officers working in the Commission including the Section Officers was issued on 2.5.88. The petitioner's name has been shown at serial No. 4 amongst the Substantive Section Officers in the seniority list. A post of Assistant Secretary fell vacant in the office of the Commission on the basis of retirement of Shri Arun Kumar Mukharjee. A meeting of the Commission took place on 3.1.91 for consideration of the cases of eligible persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. On that very day, adverse remarks for the year 1989-90 was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.1.91. In the meeting of the Commission, a decision was taken to promote Respondent No.3 Shri Ratan Bihari Ojha and an order dated 4.1.91 was issued promoting him as Assistant Secretary for a period of six months. On receipt of the communication regarding adverse remarks, the petitioner made a request on 8.1.91 to the Secretary of the Commission to furnish him with the material on the basis of which the adverse remarks were made. A reply dated 10.1.91 was given to the petitioner that he has already been communicated with the adverse remarks and there was no justification for giving certified copies. The petitioner submitted detailed representation dated 11.1.91 stating therein that he was entitled to get the material on the basis of which the alleged adverse remarks has been entered in his Annual Confidential Report. In response to this representation, the Secretary of the Commission informed the petitioner vide letter dated 29.1.91 that it is not possible to give him the copies of the documents. Thereafter the petitioner made a detailed representation against the adverse remarks on 2.2.91. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected and the petitioner had been conveyed vide letter dated 8.3.91 that the adverse entries has been maintained in his Confidential Report for the year 1989-90. Thereafter the petitioner made a detailed representation against the adverse remarks on 2.2.91. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected and the petitioner had been conveyed vide letter dated 8.3.91 that the adverse entries has been maintained in his Confidential Report for the year 1989-90. 2. The petitioner has stated that for most part of the year 1989-90 he had worked in a separate division(Secret Division) of the Commission. The work in the special division is looked after by Section Officer, Assistant Secretary, Secretary and the Chairman of the Commission. Shri Arun Kumar Mukharjee was the Assistant Secretary, Shri Sudhir Bhargava was the Secretary and Shri J.M.Khan was the Chairman. With the retirement of Shri J.M.Khan, Shri S.C. Singaria officiated as Chairman with effect from 28.11.89 to 6.9.90. The petitioner has further stated that the Annual Confidential Report of the Section Officers in the Special division are initiated by the Assistant Secretary concerned, They are reviewed and countersigned by the Secretary and the Chairman of the Commission respectively. Reference has been made to Item No. 4.8.1. in the Office Manual Volume 1 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission published on 28.2.87. The petitioner has then made a reference to the administrative instructions regarding Annual Performance Appraisal issued by the Special Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (A-II), Jaipur vide Notification dated 30.3.76. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks have been made in his Annual Confidential Report without any reason or justification. The remarks has been made arbitrarily and without any basis. He has been denied opportunity of making an effective representation. On the basis of the adverse remarks, he has been denied promotion. He has stated that he is entitled to the advantage of the hundred point roster prescribed by the State Government for reservation in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 4. The petitioner has made reference to the provisions made in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Rules and Regulations, 1963 and in particular to Rules 6 to 9 and has stated that there has been a violation of the provisions of these Rules in making of the promotion. 4. The petitioner has made reference to the provisions made in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Rules and Regulations, 1963 and in particular to Rules 6 to 9 and has stated that there has been a violation of the provisions of these Rules in making of the promotion. The petitioner has prayed that order Exhibit-9, by which he has been communicated with the rejection of his representation , be quashed and Respondent No. 2 be directed to promote him as Assistant Secretary with effect from 4.1.91, with consequential benefits. 5. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, an application was filed by Respondent No. 4 Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma and he was ordered to be impleaded as party to the Writ Petition. 6. In its reply to the Writ Petition, Respondent No. 2 has admitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and that he is working as Section Officer in a substantive capacity since 13.3.85. It has also been admitted that the Commission met on 3.1.91 for consideration of the cases of eligible persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary which fell vacant on 1.1.91. As per Rule 6 of 1963 Rules, in selecting the candidate for promotion academic qualifications and experience, knowledge of office work, ability to express themselves clearly in English and Hindi, tact, initiative, energy and intelligence, character including integrity, previous record of service are required to be looked into. Apart from the adverse entries in the annual performance appraisal report of the petitioner for the year 1989-90, entries of the two previous years, namely, 87-88 and 88-89 are of advisory nature. The previous Chairman of the Commission had advised that the work of the petitioner be supervised and that he was not dependable. Complaints against the petitioner were received by the Commission. Against the adverse remarks the petitioner has made a representation which was duly examined and it was found that there was no ground to 'expunage the adverse entries. After taking into consideration his record of service, it was found that the petitioner should not be promoted on the post of Assistant Secretary, a post which carries the duties of confidence and dependability. Respondent No. 2 has denied the allegation of the petitioner that there has been violation of the guidelines issued by the Government for drawal of annual confidential report and communication of the adverse remarks etc. 7. Respondent No. 2 has denied the allegation of the petitioner that there has been violation of the guidelines issued by the Government for drawal of annual confidential report and communication of the adverse remarks etc. 7. A separate reply has been filed by Respondent No.4. He has stated that he is senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Section Officers. The petitioner's candidature has been considered and the Commission has found no ground to expunge the adverse entries made in annual performance appraisal report of the petitioner for the year 1989-90. According to Respondent No. 4, the function of the Commission while deciding the representation against the adverse entries in the annual performance appraisal report, cannot be termed as a quasi- judicial function. Respondent No.4 has stated that principles of natural justice are not required to be followed in such matters as claimed by the petitioner. It cannot be said to be a case of acting unfairly or unjustly. Petitioner was served with the adverse remarks and a question has been called for from him. He has submitted his explanation also. Regarding the compliance of 100 point roster, the Respondent No. 4 has stated that the petitioner does not possess unblemished service record and, therefore, he has not been promoted as Assistant Secretary. Merely because he is qualified for promotion, it cannot be said that he has a right to be promoted. 8. A Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the reply of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In his Rejoinder, he has stated that the communication Exhibit-2 was given to him at 4.30 P.M. By that time the meeting of the Commission had taken place and a decision had been taken for promotion on the post of Assistant Secretary. Exhibit-2 was delivered to the petitioner through Peon Book in which the petitioner affixed the signatures and also mentioned the time of delivery of the communication dated 3.1.91. He has then stated that remarks for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 have been described as advisory and have, therefore, not been communicated but they have been made use of for the purpose of denial of promotion to the petitioner without giving him any opportunity to make a representation against the sank. This has resulted in serious violation of the principles of natural justice. This has resulted in serious violation of the principles of natural justice. He has referred to the State Government's circular dated 16.7.77 whereby it has been enjoined that advisory remarks will not be treated as adverse for the purposes of promotion. The petitioner has stated that since the Respondent Commission failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the principles of natural justice, the adverse remarks communicated to him vide Exhibit-2 cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be acted upon to his prejudice. The petitioner has claimed that rejection of his representation is without any justification. There has been whole-sale breach of the guidelines of the State Government. Instructions have been issued by the State Government in respect of filling of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports and it cannot be treated as empty formality. 9. From the facts which have cone on record, it is evident that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Section Officer in the Service of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He is a member of Scheduled Caste and is therefore, entitled to the benefits of 100 point roster which has been made effective from 1.4.85. It is also a fact that he was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. One vacancy had become available in the cadre of Assistant Secretary on 1.1.91 on account of retirement of Shri A.K. Mukharjee. A meeting of the Commission was held on 3.1.91 for consideration of cases of eligible persons for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission Rules and Regulations, 1963. The promotion was required to be made on the basis of seniority cum merit. The petitioners candidature was considered and on account of the adverse remarks in Annual Performance Appraisal Report 1989-90 and the so-called adverse and the advisory remarks for the year 1987-88 and 1988-89, he was not found suitable for promotion. It is also borne out from.the record that in the evening of 3.1.91 itself the petitioner was conveyed with the letter of even date communicating him with the adverse entries for the year 1989-90. Order of promotion of Shri Ratan Bihari Ojha was issued on 4.1.91. It is also borne out from.the record that in the evening of 3.1.91 itself the petitioner was conveyed with the letter of even date communicating him with the adverse entries for the year 1989-90. Order of promotion of Shri Ratan Bihari Ojha was issued on 4.1.91. The petitioner did make an application on 8.1.91 for supply of the true copy of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report/Annual Confidential Report and the facts on the basis of which adverse entries were made. In the alternative he prayed for inspection of the said material for the purpose of making representation. His requests were turned down by communication dated 10.1.91. On 11.1.91 again he made a representation for supply of the material on the basis of which the adverse entries were recorded. His request was again turned down vide communication dated 21.1.91 on the ground that the comments were confidential. He then made a detailed representation on 2.2.91. The same has been rejected and he was communicated with the rejection on 8.3.91. It is also borne out from the record that the so called advisory remarks for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 were taken into consideration against the petitioner although these remarks were not conveyed to the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to make representation against the same. 10. Shri M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of Rajasthan Public Service Commission stated that seven years' past record is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. He also placed before the Court the Confidential Rolls of the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 as well as the file in which the representations of the petitioner against the adverse remarks have been dealt with. Confidential Rolls of the petitioner show that for the year 1983-84 the petitioner has been described as very good officer by the reporting officer, namely, the Secretary and the Chairman has countersigned it. For the year 1984-85 the reporting officer has described the petitioner as an average officer and deserves promotion. The Chairman has given the remarks as a good officer and depend- able'. For the year 1985-86 no specific remarks have been given but his performance has been rated as satisfactory. For the year 1986-87 also no specific remark has been made although his work has been rated as satisfactory. The Chairman has given the remarks as a good officer and depend- able'. For the year 1985-86 no specific remarks have been given but his performance has been rated as satisfactory. For the year 1986-87 also no specific remark has been made although his work has been rated as satisfactory. For the year 1987-88 the reporting officer has given the remarks that he is a polite and dependable officer but the Chairman of the Commission has described the petitioner as hard working but there is no proof of his dependability but some complaints have been received and not fit for confidential work. He gave certain complaints to the Secretary for enquiry. For the year 1988-89 the reporting officer has not given any specific remark. His work has been reported to be satisfactory. The Secretary also described his work as satisfactory but the Chairman observed that the officer can do better work provided he is kept under control and there is a need to watch him. He does not have experience of other sections and he should be transferred to other sections. For the year 1989-90 the reporting officer has described his work as satisfactory. The Secretary has observed that his work has been quite satisfactory but the Chairman has given the remarks that he agrees with the previous remarks of the Chairman and has doubt about his integrity. He is not fit for any confidential work and he is not fit for promotion. In so far as Respondent No. 3 is concerned, for the year 1983-84 , he has been described as a very good officer. For the years 1984-85 to 1989-90 he has been described as a good or very good officer. Only in 1988-89 the Chairman has remarked that he is very good officer but the illness has caused some break in his performance. When the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner did make applications for supply of the facts on the basis of which the adverse remarks were made. His Confidential Rolls were placed before the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman observed that the D.P.C. had considered the entire matter in detail and there were no ground for re-consideration. The petitioner was given personal hearing. Thereafter, the Secretary observed that his prayer for expunging the adverse remarks requires to be considered. His Confidential Rolls were placed before the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman observed that the D.P.C. had considered the entire matter in detail and there were no ground for re-consideration. The petitioner was given personal hearing. Thereafter, the Secretary observed that his prayer for expunging the adverse remarks requires to be considered. The Chair- man then observed that the remarks were not from one but two Chairmen and he did not find sufficient justification for expunging them. 11. The first question which arises for determination is as to whether the Respondent No.2 was entitled to take into consideration the adverse remarks made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1989-90 without communicating the same to the petitioner, giving him an opportunity of making representation and what is the effect of late communication of the adverse remarks and decision of the representation after the actual promotion order had been issued. The State Government has issued instructions from time to time for maintaining the Annual Confidential Report/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, making of remarks therein and communication thereof as also decision of the representations. The last circular has been issued by the Government on 30.3.76. In para 1 the object of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report has been described as making of objective assessment of performance of an employee. The importance of Annual Performance Appraisal Report has been described in para 2 in the following words: "Since Government have accepted the principle that confirmation, crossing of efficiency bar, promotion, grant of pensionary benefits etc. should be based on the assessment of the Annual Performance Appraisal, this matter is of greatest importance for the efficiency and the morale of the service. It is in the interest of Government not less than that of the employees, that value of a proper system of Performance Appraisal is recognised by all concerned." Para 3 relates to applicability. It applies to all Government servants except those working in RJS/RHJS cadre and those working in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat and the Rajasthan Lokayukta Sachivalaya etc. Para 8 of these instructions relates to the procedure for filling up the column relating to integrity. It applies to all Government servants except those working in RJS/RHJS cadre and those working in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat and the Rajasthan Lokayukta Sachivalaya etc. Para 8 of these instructions relates to the procedure for filling up the column relating to integrity. This para reads as under: (i) The procedure for filling up the column relating to integrity is as follows: (a) Supervisory officers should maintain a confidential diary in which instances which creates suspicion about the integrity of a subordinate should be noted from time to time and action to verify the truth of such suspicions should be taken expeditiously by making confidential enquiries departmentally or by referring the matter to the Anti-Corruption Department. At the time of recording the annual performance appraisal, this diary should be consulted and the material in it utilised for filling the column about integrity. (ii) Specific mention should be made in the reports of officers working in or holding charge of Top Secret/Secret Sections about their trust worthinesses specially in matters effecting departmental security." Para 14 deals with the responsibility of the Reporting Officer. Para 15 contains the provision regarding responsibilities of the reviewing officer. Para 16 relates to communication of adverse remarks and disposal of the representations. The petitioner has stated in his petition that these instructions are applicable to the service of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission by virtue of para 4.8.1 of the official manual Vol.1 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Rule 17 of the 1963 Rules. Respondent No.2 in its reply has asserted that instructions and guidelines issued by the State Government regarding Annual Performance Appraisal Reports are applicable to different cadres of the Commission but these guidelines are only for the guidance of the officers and the same cannot be made basis for legal action. Importance of remarks made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report has been emphasised in the circular of the Government dated 30.3.76. It is evident that though the entries made in the character roll and annual confidential report of a Government servant are confidential and those do not affect the civil rights of Government servants but the entries play a vital role in the matter of confirmation, crossing of efficiency bar, promotion etc. Careers of Government servants are made up or marred on account of the entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. Careers of Government servants are made up or marred on account of the entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. It is, therefore, necessary that those who are assigned the duties of making entries as reporting officer or reviewing officer or countersigning authority, must act on objective consideration while making the entries. Great care must be taken to avoid the element of subjectivity in making of the remarks in Annual Confidential Reports. The concerned authorities must apply their mind, must consider the performance of an employee for the entire year and then make entries. The remarks, whether they are good or adverse, must be specific. Entries in the Confidential reports must not be made arbitrarily. There is nothing like unguided or un-fattred discretion vesting in the reporting/ reviewing or countersigning officer in making adverse entries or withholding of integrity certificates. 12. If adverse remarks are made in the Confidential Reports of employees, they must be communicated expeditiously. The employee should be given an opportunity to make representation. Such representation/explanation must be considered after receiving comments of the officer who makes the adverse remarks (as far as possible representations should be decided objectively and fairly and then decision should be communicated to him). As already noticed here in above, the entries in the Confidential Reports play a vital role in the matters of promotion etc. A large number of cases are being filed in the Courts of Law and Service Tribunals by the employees alleging that the adverse remarks have not been communicated when his/her case for promotion was considered by the competent authority or the DPC or that the remarks were communicated and representation has been submitted but the same has not been decided before consideration for promotion etc. has been made. This branch of litigation to much extent, can be avoided if the concerning authorities of the Department or the institutions who were to fill them, apply mind a bit to comply with the requirements of natural justice, namely timely communication of adverse remarks, giving of opportunity of making representation and decision on such representations. Even otherwise it is quite unfair and unreasonable that adverse remarks are not communicated to the employee or representation, if made, is not decided before consideration of his/her case for promotion. Every Government servant is ordinarily a careerist. A Government servant is bound to clamour for higher status and better salary. Even otherwise it is quite unfair and unreasonable that adverse remarks are not communicated to the employee or representation, if made, is not decided before consideration of his/her case for promotion. Every Government servant is ordinarily a careerist. A Government servant is bound to clamour for higher status and better salary. He has genuine aspiration for promotion to higher posts. Employees who remain stagnant on a particular post cannot deliver the goods to the public to whom they are expected to serve. Availability of timely opportunities of promotions, better service conditions etc. are sine qua non for a good administration which is expected to be responsive to the needs of the society and the progress of the country. Individual Government servant expects that he should not be denied his normal promotions and the efficiency of a public servant by and large depends on such expectations being fulfilled. An endeavour should always, therefore, be made by the Government or other bodies who are charged with the responsibilities of their employees for promotion that the service record of all the employees who fall within the zone of consideration for promotion is completed in time and such completed record is made available to the DPC or other selecting agency. If adverse remarks exist in the Annual Confidential Report/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports, the same must be communicated expeditiously, opportunity should be given to the Government servant for making representation and decision is taken. The concerning authorities can- not avoid compliance of this requirement of the principles of natural justice. Else, their action is bound to be charged with the allegation of unfairness, arbitrariness or unjustness. 13. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and others, (1979)2 SCC 368 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under: "The principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and 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. 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 chain 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." 14. In the light of the principle enunciated in Gurdial Singh Fijji's case, it must be held that the action of the Commission in considering the adverse remarks of the petitioner in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 1989-90 without communication of the same to the petitioner was arbitrary and unjust. No explanation has been offered by the Respondent Commission as to what was the hurry for convening its meeting for promotion when the record was not complete in as much as the adverse remarks were not conveyed to the petitioner and he was not given opportunity for making representation in respect of the same. What was done subsequently could have easily been done before (1) (1979)2 SCC 368 convening the meeting of the Commission for considering the cases of eligible persons for promotion. However, that by itself will not have the effect of vitiating the order dated 4.1.91 regarding promotion of Respondent No3. The fact remains that the petitioner has been communicated with the adverse remarks on 3.1.91. He did make representation and the same has been decided. In Gurdial Singh Fijji's case also the Supreme Court had directed that the Government should first consider the representations made by the petitioner and dispose them of and for deciding the question of merit and suitability cum seniority, the Selection Committee was directed to consider government's decision on the representation made by Shri Gurdial Singh Fijji. In Gurdial Singh Fijji's case also the Supreme Court had directed that the Government should first consider the representations made by the petitioner and dispose them of and for deciding the question of merit and suitability cum seniority, the Selection Committee was directed to consider government's decision on the representation made by Shri Gurdial Singh Fijji. The Court directed that the Committee shall record its reasons if Gurdial Singh was not considered to be suitable for inclusion in- the select list. In the present case the representation has been considered subsequently by the Commission and a decision has been taken not to expunge the adverse entries. Thus the adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner have been maintained. Even if the petitioner has not been conveyed with the adverse remarks and the same were taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion, the maximum which the Court could direct in such event would have been to direct the Commission to communicate the adverse remarks giving him an opportunity of making representation and then decide the same, with a further direction that in case the adverse remarks were to be expunged, this case should be reconsidered for promotion. That is the normal procedure followed in all cases of this nature. Therefore, the promotion of Respondent No.3 cannot be declared to be invalid only on the ground that the adverse remarks were not communicated to the petitioner well in advance before the meeting of the Commission and his representation has not been decided. 15. The next question which calls for determination is as to whether the decision of the Commission whereby it has refused to expunge the adverse remarks made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1989-90 should be set aside on the ground that the communication of the Commission does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion that his representation is rejected. 16. The instructions which have been issued by the Government and which have been treated as applicable to the employees of the Commission (as is evident from para 15 of the Reply), are administrative instructions. They have not been issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. These instructions have not been framed in exercise of statutory powers issued by the Government. They have not been issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. These instructions have not been framed in exercise of statutory powers issued by the Government. Thus, this power does not have the force of Law. But, nevertheless it cannot be said that whole-sale breach of these instructions can be made by the concerned authorities and still no relief can be given to the affected Government servant. These instructions contain the detailed procedure and the element of fairness, which must inform each and every State action, has been ingrained in these instructions. The petitioner had made applications for furnishing him the copies of the facts on the basis of which adverse remarks were made, The Commission declined his requests. He then made a detailed representation. According to Respondent No. 2 it was considered by the Chairman and no ground was found for expunging the adverse remarks. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while deciding the representation of the petitioner the competent authority was discharging quasi-judicial functions. As any other quasi-judicial authority, it was bound to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and was bound to pass a reasoned order for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Shri M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General and Shri S.K. Keshote, Advocate, strenuously urged that the functions discharged by the competent authority while deciding the representation was an administrative function, and there was no obligation to pass a speaking order. I find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the Respondents. As already observed here in above, entire grade in the character roll and confidential record of a Government servant are kept confidential. These entries by themselves do not constitute conditions of service. Reference in this context can be made into Tayab All v. State of Rajasthan, 1988(2) RLR 1 , (full Bench). Therefore, the competent authority is not required to act as a quasi judicial authority and pass a speaking order. A similar question arose for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. E.G. Nambudiri, (1991)3 SCC 38 . Then Central Administrative Tribunal had quashed the adverse entries made in the confidential report of the Respondent on the ground that the decision rejecting representation of the employee did not contain reasons. A similar question arose for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. E.G. Nambudiri, (1991)3 SCC 38 . Then Central Administrative Tribunal had quashed the adverse entries made in the confidential report of the Respondent on the ground that the decision rejecting representation of the employee did not contain reasons. Dealing with the said, the Supreme Court reiterated in the first instance the purpose of the rules of natural justice in the following words: The purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and it is no more in doubt that the principles of natural justice are applicable to administrative orders if such orders affect the right of a citizen. Arriving at the just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial as well as administrative enquiry, an unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far-reaching effect than decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry. Now, there is no doubt that the principles of natural justice are applicable even to administrative enquiries. See: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 ." The Court then proceeded to observe : "There are however, many areas of administrative activity where no reasons are recorded or communicated, if such a decision is challenged before the court for judicial review, the reasons for the decision may be placed before the court. The superior authority while considering the representation of a Government servant against adverse remarks, is not required by law to act judicially, it is under no legal obligation to record or communicate reasons for its decision to the Government servant. The decision, rejecting the representation does not adversely affect any vested right of the Government servant nor does it visit him with any civil consequences. In many cases having regard to infinite variations of circumstances, it may not be possible to disclose reasons for the opinion formed about the work and conduct or character or the Government servant. " 'There is no dispute that there is no rule or administrative order for recording reasons in rejecting a representation. In the absence of-any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries the competent authority is not under any obligation to record reasons. " 'There is no dispute that there is no rule or administrative order for recording reasons in rejecting a representation. In the absence of-any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries the competent authority is not under any obligation to record reasons. But the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily, he must act in a fair and just manner. He is required to consider the questions raised by the Government servant and examine the same, in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer countersigning the same. If the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. In the absence of any statutory or administrative provision requiring the competent authority to record reasons or to communicate reasons, no exception can be taken to the order rejecting representation merely on the ground of absence of reasons. No order of an administrative authority communicating its decision is rendered illegal on the ground of absence of reasons ex facie and it is not open to the court to interfere with such orders merely on the ground of absence of any reasons. However, it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. In governmental functioning before any order is is- sued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. If the order as communicated to the Government servant rejecting the representation does not contain any reasons, the order cannot be held to be bad in law. If such an order is challenged in a court of law it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence aliunde before the court to justify its action." 17. If such an order is challenged in a court of law it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence aliunde before the court to justify its action." 17. From the above quoted observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that an order rejecting representation against the adverse entries cannot be quashed only on the ground that the order ex facie does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion. But nevertheless the Court can always call upon the Government or the competent authority to produce the record containing reasons, and the competent authority is also entitled to place the reasons before the Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. 18. In the present case the Respondent No. 2 has placed its record before the Court. From perusal of that record, I find that the learned Chairman of the Com- mission did not consider the representation of the petitioner, with reference to his claim for promotion, to be tenable because according to him the Commission had considered the relevant record before taking a decision on promotion. The learned Chairman merely observed that the remarks were made by not only one, but two Chairman and he does not find sufficient ground for expunging them. The record does not disclose that the representation of the petitioner was even sent to the authorities who had made adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner. The petitioner has raised several contentions in his representation. In paras 9 to 21, he had given details of his contentions for challenging the adverse remarks on various grounds. It is not recorded by the learned Chairman that he had himself found that the petitioner's integrity was doubtful or was not dependable to work in confidential section. No other material has been considered by the Chairman. The record does not contain any reason for the conclusion that he does not find sufficient ground for expunging the adverse remarks. The minimum which was required in such a case was that the representation of the petitioner should have been sent to the authorities who made the adverse remarks and their comments were taken on the representation of the petitioner. The minimum which was required in such a case was that the representation of the petitioner should have been sent to the authorities who made the adverse remarks and their comments were taken on the representation of the petitioner. Only then a fair decision could have been arrived at. Moreover, this is factually not correct that the said adverse remarks had been made by two Chairmen. The remarks for the year 1989-90 were made only by one Chairman. In fact the reporting officer did not make any adverse remark. The reviewing authority namely, the Secretary observed that working of the petitioner has been quite satisfactory. Only the Chairman expressed doubt about the integrity of the petitioner and it is he who made the other adverse remarks. The record which has been placed before me does not show as to what material was taken into consideration for making the adverse remarks or for rejection of the representation. Such a decision on the representation of the petitioner cannot be described as fair. Requirement of recording of reasons, as envisaged in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri's case (supra), has also not been fulfilled. It is relevant If point out here that in Srilekha Vidyarthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 1991 SC 537 , also their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that even if reasons are not required to be communicated, it is the obligation of the authority to record them and when a challenge is made to the action of the Government and a charge of arbitrariness is levelled , the Government must place the record before the Court to satisfy that the mind has been applied by the Government and a reasoned decision has been taken. 19. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that rejection of the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks is not legally sustainable. 20. The next point to be decided in this Writ Petition is as to whether the Respondent Commission has fairly considered the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Secretary. The petitioner has claimed, and that claim of the petitioner has not been disputed, that 100 point roster is applicable to the services of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the purpose of effecting reservation in favour of the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner has claimed, and that claim of the petitioner has not been disputed, that 100 point roster is applicable to the services of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the purpose of effecting reservation in favour of the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is not (sic) a member of Scheduled Caste and has an independent right of consideration against the reserved vacancies. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission has come out with the case that the petitioner's candidature has been considered but he was not found suitable. Reference has been made to the entries of 1987-88 and 1988-89 apart from the adverse remarks of 1989-90 in support of the plea that the petitioner was not found suitable on account of the entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report. The entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports of the petitioner for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 have been quoted above. A perusal of the same merely go to show that these entries are not merely advisory but are clearly adverse, to the petitioner. The petitioner was never communicated with these remarks and had not been given any opportunity to make representation against the same. Although the Respondent Commission has described them as advisory, but at the same time it has taken these entries into consideration for the purpose of treating the petitioner unsuitable for, promotion. This action of the Commission is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice because ad- verse material has been relied upon by the Commission without giving any op (4) AIR 1991 SC 537 opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter or to present his side of the case. The principle of Law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji's case (supra) is attracted in the facts of the present case. Thus, the candidature of the petitioner has not been fairly considered for promotion and it has the effect of vitiating the promotion made by order dated 4.1.91. 21. The Writ Petition therefore, succeeds. The rejection of the representation of the petitioner is declared to be illegal. The Respondent Commission is directed to re-consider the representation of the petitioner and decide it afresh after calling for the comments of the authorities who had made the adverse remarks. The petitioner should be afforded opportunity of personal hearing afresh. 21. The Writ Petition therefore, succeeds. The rejection of the representation of the petitioner is declared to be illegal. The Respondent Commission is directed to re-consider the representation of the petitioner and decide it afresh after calling for the comments of the authorities who had made the adverse remarks. The petitioner should be afforded opportunity of personal hearing afresh. The promotion on the post of Assistant Secretary made by order dated 4.1.91 is declared as illegal because the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered fairly. After deciding the representations of the petitioner in respect of the adverse entries for the year 1989-90 afresh, the Commission should re-consider the case of promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary and in doing so, it shall not take into consideration the entries for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 (which are not advisory but in fact are adverse) without communicating the same to the petitioner and without giving opportunity for making representation against the same and also without deciding such representation. Respondent No. 3 shall however, continue as Assistant Secretary on temporary basis tor a period of four months within which the exercise of reconsideration of representations of the petitioner is undertaken and completed. The petitioner shall also have a right of consideration as a member of Scheduled Caste, if the vacancy had been determined as a reserved vacancy. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******