R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claims to have joined the U. P. Agriculture service class II as Soil Conservation officer in 1967. Subsequently pursuant to his selection by the U. P. Public Service Commission the petitioner was appointed as Soil Conservation Officer on regular basis. In January, 1974 he was confirmed on the said post. The Government of U. P. vide order dated 6-7-1984 appointed him in a stop-gap arrangement as officiating Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation)which is a Class I post in the Agriculture service, with a condition that although he will perform work of Class I post but he will be paid salary of Class II post only. Pursuant to the above order he was posted as Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation) in Ramganga Command area Fatehpur. Latter on he was transferred from Fatehpur to Lalitpur In the same capacity. By order dated 3-8-1986 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil conservation) on ad hoc basis. By order dated 16-3-1988 he was granted selection grade by the state Government. However, by an order dated 12-10-1988 an adverse entry was recorded in his character roll by the State Government which was communicated to him by the Director of agriculture by letter dated 29-10-1988. Against the said adverse entry the petitioner filed representation dated 9-12-1938 before the State Government. As his representation remained undisposed inspite of reminders sent by him he filed writ petition No. nil on 1991 before this court which was disposed of on 11-11-1991 directing the Government to decide his representation within ten days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this Court order before it. It has been stated that the petitioner filed the certified copy of the said order passed by this Court before the respondents on 25-11-1991, but even then his representation was not disposed of and the Government passed an order dated December 19, 1991 reverting him from class ) to Class II) post on the ground that he was not found suitable for promotion to Class I post. By another order of the same date other Class II officers have been promited, to Class I posts. Being aggrieved by those two orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition. By another order of the same date other Class II officers have been promited, to Class I posts. Being aggrieved by those two orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 2 ) WHILE entertaining this writ petition this Court on 7-1-1992 granted a months time to learned standing Counsel, who represents the respondents the respondents, to file counter-affidavit. On the same date this Court also granted an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 19-12-1991 until further order of the Court. The respondents did not file counter-affidavit. On 5-7-1996 this Court granted one month and no more time to learned standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit. Inspite of the stop order the counter-affidavit has not been filed. The result is that the averments made in the writ petition are liable to be taken as correct. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has made three submission in support of the writ petition, viz. (i) As the petitioner was promited on officiating basis in 1984 to Class I post in Agriculture department and has been working since then in that post, his promotion was liable to be regularised under the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Promition (on the post within purview of the Public Service Commisssion) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); (ii) It is not open to the respondents to reject petitioners claim for promotion on the basis of adverse entry against which the representation fifed by him was disposed of till then ; and (iii) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the reversion of the petitioner from Class I to Class II post was arbitrary and unjustified. ( 4 ) AS regards the first submission, it may be mentioned that Rule 4 has laid down that a person, who was appointed by promotion on ad hoc basis before January 1, 1985 and is continuing in service on the date of commencement of the Rules and was eligible for regular promition on the date of ad hoc promotion and has also completed certain years of service on the said post, is liable to be considered for regular appointment by promotion in permanent or temporary vacancy which may be available, on the basis of the record including the confidential entries and the suitability. The petitioner was appointed in 1984 as Deputy Director in a stop-gap arrangement purely in officiating capacity with a condition that he will be paid the salary of Class II post. It was nothing but a working arrangement on account of the fact that appointments to Class I posts could not be made due to various reasons mentioned in the Government order. Such an appointment cannot be considered to be ad hoc appointment on the basis of which tee question of regularisation of the ad hoc promition under the Rules can be considered. The first submission is, therefore, rejected. ( 5 ) THE second submission is that the petitioners claim for promition/regularisation of ad hoc promotion could not have been rejected on the basis of adverse entry against which he has filed representation, which was not disposed of till then. In his support the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on S. Maheswar Rao v. State of Orissa, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 248 and Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, 1989 (4) SCC 664 . In the aforesaid two cases the supreme Court has held that an adverse entry in respect of which the representation has not been disposed of cannot be taken into account while considering the case of a Government servant for compulsory retirement. But Supreme Court in Baikunth Nath Das v. Chief Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC 1020 . has not approved the law laid down in the aforementioned cases and has held that the order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed merely on the ground that while passing it he uncommuni- cated adverse entries were taken into consideration. The Apex Court further held that the decision in Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa (supra) being contrary to its earlier decision in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 , cannot be followed. The Apex Court further held that the decision in Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa (supra) being contrary to its earlier decision in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 , cannot be followed. A division Bench of this Court in Ramji Gupta v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 18663 of 1992 decided on 24-9-1996, while considering the case of regularisation of ad hoc appointment under the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc appointment (On posts within purview of Public Service commission) Rules, 1979, which are in parameteria with the Rules, has laid down that the committee, while considering the case of an employee for regular appointment/ regularisation of ad hoc appointment, is entitled to take into account the uncommunicated adverse remarks also. While- holding as above this Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court. What is worth of such a remark is matter which may differ from case to case. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, also rejected. ( 6 ) THE petitioner, however, liable to second on the third submission In the instant case the petitioner was working in Class I post since 1984 when he was appointed as officiating Deputy director in a stop-gap arrangement, although without any pay of Class I post. In 1986 he was given ad hoc promotion to Class I post and he is getting his salary for the said post since then. In march, 1988 he was granted selection grade in Class I post. It has been stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that "selection Grade is granted to a Government servant on his completing a certain period of satisfactory service and keeping in view his unblemished service record. " nothing has been placed before the Court by the respondents in order to show as to how the petitioner who is working in Class I post since 1984 and who was granted selection grade in march, 1988 on the basis of satisfactory service could be treated as not suitable for promotion in 1991. The only material which is on the record is the adverse entry for the year 1987-88. The petitioner has filed copy of the said adverse remark alongwith the report of the Reporting officer, on the basis of which it has been recorded. The only material which is on the record is the adverse entry for the year 1987-88. The petitioner has filed copy of the said adverse remark alongwith the report of the Reporting officer, on the basis of which it has been recorded. The report of the Reporting Officer (Director of Agriculture, U. P. Lucknow) as translated into English from Hindi is as under : during the year in question in respect of Soil and Water Preservation Planning Programme, against a target of 1160 hectares the achievement was 1 67 hectares. Work executed on 2159 hectares as against the target of 2100 hectares. His performance in the area was found good. During the year there were 172 days tour programme and thirty inspection reports were submitted. Some complaints have been received against Sri Yadav, which were got enquired into by the joint Director of Agriculture (Saghan) Sri R. Prasad. Id the enquiry some irregularities were found in respect of which necessary action is being taken. Enquiry is being done in respect of other complaints. Sri Yadav is an experienced officer. Class : Good nothing has come to my knowledge to doubt Sri Pitambar Lal Yadavs integrity. He has got good reputation for his honesty. I certify his integrity. on the basis of the said report the State Government passed the following adverse remark : "in view of Reporting Officers remark his integrity certificate is withheld. " ( 7 ) THE said adverse entry is based on the Reporting Officers report. But Reporting Officer in his report has certified the integrity of the petitioner and has commended his work in the area during the period in question and has also certified him to be a good officer. The petitioners reputation of hontesty has also been taken note of by the Reporting Officer. As regards the irregularities which were found in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Joint Director it was mentioned in the said report that necessary action is being taken. The Government was thus free to take appropriate action in accordance with law pursuant to the report of the Joint Director. But before taking any action against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. But this cannot a basis for rejecting his claim for promotion, unless he is found guilty in appropriate proceeding. The Government was thus free to take appropriate action in accordance with law pursuant to the report of the Joint Director. But before taking any action against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. But this cannot a basis for rejecting his claim for promotion, unless he is found guilty in appropriate proceeding. There is nothing on the record to show that any such action has been taken against the petitioner. In this connection reference may be made to Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 724, wherein it was laid down as under: "it is sought to be contended on behalf of the State that due to bad record and adverse confidential report they have not been given the promition. Even assuming that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no enquiry was made, no findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an opportunity to the appellants. Therefore, their, reversion as head constables is clearly illegal. " No reasonable person could have withheld the integrity certificate of the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Reporting Officer referred to above. There was thus no justification for the state Government to withhold the integrity certificate of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner could not have been denied the promotion on the basis of the aforementioned adverse remarks recorded by the Government. ( 8 ) THAT apart, this Court by order dated 11-11-199, directed the Government to decide representation of the petitioner within ten days. It has been stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the aforesaid order of this court was served on the Government on 25-11-1991, but even then petitioners representation was not disposed of. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it has been stated that pending disposal of the petitioners representation against the aforesaid adverse entry the Departmental Selection Committee rejected the petitioners claim of promition to Class I post on account of the said entry. Orders passed by the Court are liable to be complied with and any order passed in violation thereof has not to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid direction of this Court it was not open to the Government to reject the petitioners claim for promition without deciding his representation. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. In view of the aforesaid direction of this Court it was not open to the Government to reject the petitioners claim for promition without deciding his representation. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 19-12-1991, so far as it has rejected the petitioners claim for promotion to Class I post in agriculture service of the State, is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioners case afresh in accordance with law, within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before them.