M. K. Sharma, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondents to promote him to the rank of Risaldar by giving him ante-date of seniority and promotion with full back wages from a date prior to 1. 2. 1993 when he was superseded by his junior Naib Risaldar after quashing and setting aside annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 1991. ( 2 ) THE petitioner obtained an adverse remark in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1991 which was conveyed to him on 7. 4. 1992 by the Initiating Officer in accordance with para 41 of Army Order 5/90. A vacancy in the rank of Risaldar occurred around February, 1993. The respondents took up the matter for consideration for making promotion to the said post of Risaldar from Naib Risaldar. However, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the said post as he was not recommended for promotion in view of adverse entry in his Confidential Report for the year 1991. The petitioner was informed about the aforesaid supersession and was also intimated that as a result of his adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1991 he could not satisfy the criteria for promotion and accordingly, he was not promoted. The petitioner filed a statutory complaint on 27. 7. 1993 which was forwarded with detailed comments to the Directorate General. The said complaint was considered by the Competent Authority and the same was rejected and the petitioner was also informed accordingly on 17. 2. 1994. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the rank of Risaldar w. e. f. 1. 6. 1994 when his annual confidential report for the year 1994 was initiated. As per the criteria in the promotion policy the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1991 was not to be considered for considering promotion in 1994. However, there was no immediate vacancy in the rank of Risaldar till 14. 2. 1995 and only when Risaldar Sukhbir Singh proceeded on deputation a vacancy arose after he was absorbed on deputation. The case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Risaldar was considered and he was granted promotion to the rank of Risaldar w. e. f. 14. 2. 2. 1995 and only when Risaldar Sukhbir Singh proceeded on deputation a vacancy arose after he was absorbed on deputation. The case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Risaldar was considered and he was granted promotion to the rank of Risaldar w. e. f. 14. 2. 1995 when the vacancy of Risaldar arose by virtue of Risaldar Sukhbir Singh proceeding to the Academy on deputation. ( 4 ) AS per promotion policy adopted by the respondents a JCO who is being considered for promotion from Naib Risaldar to Risaldar should have a minimum high average credit in the past 3 years Annual Confidential Reports. To the case of the petitioner the said condition of the promotion policy was applicable. For better appreciation I may extract the criteria which are as follows : "for promotion to the rank of Risaldar/subedar- (a) Last three reports in the rank of Naib Subedar will be considered; (b) All reports under consideration should be "high Average and above; (e) Should be recommended for promotion in the last three reports. " ( 5 ) "the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated before me that in view of the aforesaid promotion given to the petitioner to the rank of Risaldar w. e. f. 14. 2. 1995 the only short question that survives for my consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for 1991 quashed and thereafter is entitled to promotion with retrospective effect from February, 1993. Counsel submitted that the promotion policy as formulated by the respondents in the year 1993 came to bemodified on 8. 9. 1995 wherein it is provided now that where an NCO/jco falls short of one report on coming up for promotion, a Special Confidential Report might be asked on him 120 days after the last Annual Confidential Report was written. The aforesaid policy was circulated on 8. 9. 1995 and paragraph 3 of the said policy categorically stated that the said policy would be applicable from 1. 9. 1995 to 31. 3. 1997. ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH, according to the Counsel for the petitioner the said policy formulated by the respondent on 8. 9. The aforesaid policy was circulated on 8. 9. 1995 and paragraph 3 of the said policy categorically stated that the said policy would be applicable from 1. 9. 1995 to 31. 3. 1997. ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH, according to the Counsel for the petitioner the said policy formulated by the respondent on 8. 9. 1995 is applicable to the case of the petitioner, ex fade, in my considered opinion, the said policy is not applicable to the case of the petitioner for the said policy categorically asserts that the policy would be applicable from 1. 9. 1995 to 31. 3. 1997. Therefore, for deciding the present case I am to be guided by the policy for promotion formulated by the respondents on 18. 1. 1993 and the criteria for promotion to the rank of Risaldar would be the criterias which are extracted above. According to the said criterias the person concerned to be promoted to the rank of Risaldar must have high average reports or above on all the three reports preceding the date when he is considered for promotion. Admittedly, for the year 1991 the petitioner had only an average remark and he was not recommended for promotion. For considering his promotion in the year 1993 the Annual Confidential Reports of 1991,1992 and 1993 were to be considered and when he did not have high average in Annual Confidential Report for the year 1991 he could not have been promoted to the rank of Risaldar inspite of having high average reports for the subsequent two years. On perusal of the records I find that according to the respondents the work of the petitioner was barely average during the year 1991. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was cautioned verbally a number of times by his superiors including his Commanding Officer. The petitioner, it appears, was also given 2 written warnings and his shortcomings were endorsed in his Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1991 in writing on 7. 4. 1992. The petitioner refused to accept the said ACR which was also recorded. The adverse remark on his ACR on 1991 were conveyed to the petitioner on 7. 4. 1992 by the Initiating Officer as against which he submitted a statutory complaint, which after due consideration was rejected. 4. 1992. The petitioner refused to accept the said ACR which was also recorded. The adverse remark on his ACR on 1991 were conveyed to the petitioner on 7. 4. 1992 by the Initiating Officer as against which he submitted a statutory complaint, which after due consideration was rejected. ( 7 ) ON careful perusal of the records I find that reasons for giving adverse report to the petitioner in his Annual Confidential Report for 1991 have been set out at length and I cannot hold that the said reasons are either extraneous or irrelevant. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner that the said remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for 1991 were required to be quashed. Since the petitioner has earned only an average remark in his ACR for 1991 in terms of the criteria for promotion to the rank of Risaldar he could not have been promoted as he did not have three high average remarks in his last 3 ACRs. As and when the petitioner fulfilled the -criteria and when a vacancy had occurred in the rank of Risaldar, the petitioner had been given promotion making the said promotion effective from the date the said vacancy arose. ( 9 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances no further direction can be issued to the respondents as sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition stands dismissed but without any costs. .