Judgment S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. The petitioner in the instant writ application has challenged the orders dated 15.5.90 (Annexure-11) and 30.4.91 (Annexure-B) by reason of which promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel by selection has been refused taking into consideration the Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as 'A.C.R.' in short) for the year 1985-86. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 15.3.87 (Annexure-5) and order dated January, 1989 and communication thereto dated 3.2.89 (Annexure-6) by and under which the Non-Statutory and Statutory complaints filed by the petitioner were rejected. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 4.1.90 (Annexure-7) passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence rejecting the Statutory Petition filed by the petitioner. In addition to all these prayers, further prayer has been made to issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel by selection. 2. The relevant facts for deciding the issue in question lie in a narrow compass. 3. Petitioner was commissioned as an Officer in 8th Battalion of the Bihar Regiment on 31.3.72 in which he continued to serve in the aforesaid Battalion till 22.12.76. During the year 1975, the petitioner was rated as ''Above Average" and placed as "Hard Core Officer" of the said Unit. In 1976 some adverse report was entered into in his A.C.R. and that was communicated to him on 4.1.77, Petitioner did not file any representation against the same taking the same at the very initial stage of his service career and as advised by his Senior Officers. After the said adverse entry by his Commanding Officer, petitioner became more dedicated and he qualified on Defence Service Staff Course by competition and the A.C.R. upto 31st May, 1991 bear testimony of these facts. During January, 1984 to November, 1984 the petitioner qualified on the staff course and was posted to 1st Battalion of the Bihar Regiment in November, 1984 and was posted at Nagaland with specific endorsement in the posting order "posted in career interest without change of panel". The petitioner took over Wangti post from 8th Battalion of the Assam Rifles on 22.12.85 and in the first week of January, 1986 Brigadier G.B. Reddi assumed the command of 56 Mountain Brigade. 4. The petitioner took over Wangti post from 8th Battalion of the Assam Rifles on 22.12.85 and in the first week of January, 1986 Brigadier G.B. Reddi assumed the command of 56 Mountain Brigade. 4. From the facts alleged, it appears that the petitioner suffered the wrath of said G.B. Reddi. Two notes of G.B. Reddi reveal that some of the Post Commanders displayed unacceptable negative approach and merely highlighting the problem of low post strength (self created) lacks purpose, imagination and determination to get on with the job. According to the petitioner these notes of G.B. Reddi was directed towards his deliberations with Brigadier G.B. Reddi on 24.1.86. G.B. Reddi ultimately in the A.C.R. of the petitioner for the year 1985-86 adversely endorsed the note to the effect that the petitioner is advised to display resoluteness during execution of operations. It is alleged that this remark was made without disclosing the grounds and fulfilling the principle of natural justice. However, the immediate superior officer of the petitioner, namely, Lieutenant Colonel A.M. Patwardhan has certified that the performance of the petitioner for the period November, 1984 to March, 1987 was “Above Average.” On 30.7.86, petitioner filed his Non-Statutory complaint which was dispatched to the Chief of Army Staff but the General Officer Commanding-In-Chief Eastern Command rejected the aforesaid Non-Statutory complaint though the said Officer was not empowered to do so in view of Army Order 15/86. Petitioner filed his appeal on 29.10.87 but on 3.2.89 the petitioner was communicated by the Headquarters that the petitioner could file a Statutory complaint before the Government, inasmuch as, Non-Statutory complaint about the same plea could only be filed if there were fresh facts of the case. Subsequently, a Statutory complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Government on 17.3.89 which however was rejected by the Government of India, Ministery of Defence on 4.1.90 without assigning any reason whatsoever. Subsequently petitioner filed Statutory appeal on 16.3.90 against the order of the Ministry of Defence with a prayed to review its order dated 4.1.90 on, the ground mentioned therein, The said Statutory Appeal was also returned to the petitioner without placing the same before the Government stating therein that there is no provision to appeal against the decision of the Government and second appeal would lie on the fresh grounds alone. 5. 5. Case of the petitioner is that in the A.C.R. for the year 1989-90 petitioner was graded “Above Average” (8 points out of 9 points) but promotion was refused without any grounds having been disclosed and without taking into consideration of the character qualities of the petitioner. The A.C.R. of 1977 to 1990-91 was not taken into consideration in which the petitioner was found “Above Average” in every respect. Grievance of the petitioner is that without proper counselling of the performance of the petitioner during his entire service tenure of 25 years his claim for promotion was rejected. However, on 23.4.90 to 4.5.90 Number Four Selection Board considered the case of the petitioner for regular promotion to the rank of Selection Grade Lieutenant Colonel but the promotion was also rejected. The decision was communicated to the petitioner on 15.5.90. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged at the first instance that the case for promotion has to be considered on the settled promotion policy as contained in Annexures-10A and 10B. It is further contended that if these policies would have been followed there was no ground whatsoever to deny promotion to the petitioner, in-as-much as, whole career profile of the petitioner ought to have been considered. It is contended that Annexure-10A reveals that for considering the case of promotion on selection basis the overall profile of the Officer with special stress on his performance in criteria command appointment and war reports had to he taken into account. Moreover, due consideration was also to he given to consistency of performance, performances on courses and diversity of appointments held which increase or limit employability. Further potentiality of the officer to handle higher command appointments, his character qualities and discipline are also to be taken into account while considering officers for further promotion. Referring to Annexure-10B, it is submitted that Board has failed to consider the policy regarding promotion, which, inter alia states that an officer must qualify on the Mandatory course/technical qualification of his Army Service to be eligible for promotion to the rank of a Lt. Col. by selection. Referring to Annexure-10B, it is submitted that Board has failed to consider the policy regarding promotion, which, inter alia states that an officer must qualify on the Mandatory course/technical qualification of his Army Service to be eligible for promotion to the rank of a Lt. Col. by selection. It further indicates that an officer who has not done the Mandatory course or docs not have the Mandatory technical qualification applicable to his Army Service will be given a definite grading 'R' (Unfit) irrespective of his overall profile, at the time of his consideration for promotion to the rank of a Lt. Col. by No. 4 Selection Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner advancing his argument has contended that from' the impugned order as contained in Annexures-11 and 13, it is amply clear that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered only on the basis of last A.C.R. of 1988-89. Similarly, Annexure-13, it is contended, also docs not show that the guiding policy for promotion as contained in Annexures-10A and 10B were even taken into consideration by the No.4 Selection Board. It is submitted that only negative points against the petitioner recorded in the records have been taken into consideration whereas under Regulation 20(c) of the Army Regulation it is the duty of military Secretary to place the entire career records before the Board. Firstly it is argued that while the Statutory Appeal was pending even then the authority concerned went on reviewing the case of the petitioner repeatedly against the statutory provisions. 7. It appears that two counter-affidavits have been filed in this case on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6. The first counter-affidavit was filed on 30.7.92. In this counter-affidavit, it has been, inter alia, stated that from 1987-88 to 1990-91, the petitioner has been overall assessed as "Above Average" by the reporting officer and he has been awarded 5/6 points in a number of personal qualities and variable of demonstrated performance. It is stated that though against the petitioner there was no disciplinary 'award, however, there was a censure, severe displeasure (recordable) against him for submitting a complaint against his Commanding Officer. In para-15 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that No.4 Selection Board considered the case of the petitioner and found him unlit from April, 1990, March, 1991 and February, 1992. In para-15 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that No.4 Selection Board considered the case of the petitioner and found him unlit from April, 1990, March, 1991 and February, 1992. Petitioner was considered for promotion along with his batch mates and was found 'unfit' on comparative merit. From the averments made in the first counter-affidavit, it appears that no specific denial has been made that case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered in accordance with the guidelines as contended by the petitioner. 8. By order dated 7.8.92 this Court directed the learned counsel for the Control Government to produce relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, the relevant documents have been produced during course of hearing. 9. Second counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears, is mere repetition of the statement that case of the petitioner along with his batch mates was considered by the Selection Board and petitioner was found 'unfit' for promotion. However, the statement of the petitioner that censure awarded on 23.8.76 against the petitioner was considered by the Selection Board as the same was being in-operative with effect from 23.8.79 has been contradicted. In this counter-affidavit also nowhere it has been stated that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the guidelines formulated by the respondents. 10. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, learned counsel for the Central Government, while submitting the relevant records has tried to persuade the Court that records will show that the case of the petitioner was considered along with his batch mates. From perusal of the report, it does not appear that the case of the petitioner Maj Amrik Singh was considered by the authority Pages 3 and 4 of the record shows the names of some officers with disciplinary background. This shows the names of Maj Shamsher Singh, Maj G.S. Chauhan, Maj J. Singh, Maj Charanjit Singh and Maj K.S. Solanki. Only a list of 1st review 1972 batch indicates the name of the petitioner. 11. We fail to appreciate as to how these documents help the respondents in contending that the ease of the petitioner was considered in accordance wit h the guidelines prescribed as contained in Annexures-10A and 10B. Only a list of 1st review 1972 batch indicates the name of the petitioner. 11. We fail to appreciate as to how these documents help the respondents in contending that the ease of the petitioner was considered in accordance wit h the guidelines prescribed as contained in Annexures-10A and 10B. It is well settled principle of law that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion and if there is any guidelines for consideration of the same that has to be followed. 12. It is already noticed that guidelines for promotion indicates that overall performance of a candidate has to be considered taking into account of his overall profile. Moreover, these guidelines also clarify that while considering good performance of their present rank of the award given to them, due consideration is also given to some other factors, namely, overall profile of the officer with special stress on his performance in criteria command appointment and war reports. Consistency of performance, performances on courses and diversity of appointments held, potentiality of the officer to handle higher command appointments etc. are also to be taken note of. Similarly, Annexure-10B indicates that after re-examining policy as a whole certain criteria have been laid down which are incorporated in the annexure itself. 13. The statement of the petitioner that he was promoted to the rank of Acting Major in 1983 and was awarded 9 and 20 medal in recognition of his unblemished service in 1975-86 respectively has not been denied. Secondly, it is also not denied that the guidelines were not followed while considering the case of the petitioner. This facts is also clear from the impugned annexure-11 itself which reveals that only A.C.R. of 1988/1989 was considered. Similarly Annexure-13 also does not indicate that promotion policy was followed. Under these backgrounds, I am constrained to hold that while considering the case of the petitioner, the authority concerned did not follow the guidelines of their own and the whole decision of rejecting the case of the petitioner' fur promotion is tainted with bias. It is well settled principle that justice not only to be done but must seem to have been done. In this case, by not following• the guiding principles for promotion the petitioner has been denied justice arbitrarily and illegally and as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 14. It is well settled principle that justice not only to be done but must seem to have been done. In this case, by not following• the guiding principles for promotion the petitioner has been denied justice arbitrarily and illegally and as such the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 14. In the result, the application is allowed and the orders as contained in Annexures-11 and 13 are quashed. 15. The authority concerned is directed to reconsider de novo the case of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with the guidelines as aforesaid. However, there will he no order as to costs.