Honble YAMIN, J.–Petitioner Prem Singh Panwar entered government service on being appointed as LDC in the Pratapgarh Judgeship on 12.3.1959. His first appointment was temporary but he was confirmed on the post of LDC on 3.3.1960. He thereafter passed the test of Accounts Clerk and consequently was appointed as Accounts Clerk by the office order dated 21.6.1967. He was promoted on the post of Office Assistant vide order dated 19.8.1974 w.e.f. 11/12.3.31974. He was confirmed on this post vide order dated 25.5.1979 with retrospective effect i.e. 12.3.1974. At the time of filing the writ petition he was holding this post. In between, the petitioner was made to officiate on the post of Munsarim number of times in absence of Munsarim even on leave or otherwise. No adverse entry was ever com- municated to the petitioner at any stage. No inquiry was held against him and he was never punished in any manner whatsoever. (2). A false complaint was made against the petitioner some where in the year 1976-77 by one Durga Shankar Advocate and later on he did not choose to press it. A preliminary inquiry was held on this complaint but no case was found to have been made out against the petitioner. The matter was not proceeded with further. A commendation certificate was given by the then District Judge Shri R.M. Khinvesara on 15.5.75. Instead the petitioner was superseded and one Prabhu Lal Tripathi was appointed as Munsarim by the District Judge, Pratapgarh. This Prabhulal Tripathi was appointed as LDC on 16.1.1957 and was promoted as UDC on 12.10.70. He was promoted as Senior Reader vide order dated 1.3.1977 and was ordered to be confirmed on the said post w.e.f. 28.3.1977. He was promoted as Munsarim vide order dated 30.8.1980 which is Anx.1 on record. The petitioner filed an appeal to the High Court against his supersession on 22.9.80. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the fact of dismissal of the appeal was served on the petitioner on 23.6.1981. This order did not contain the order of the Administrative Judge (appellate authority) and, therefore, the petitioner asked for a copy thereof. After a lot of correspondence for a very long time the petitioner was informed by letter dated 18.6.1982 that he should obtain the copy of the order by making an application according to Rules. This order did not contain the order of the Administrative Judge (appellate authority) and, therefore, the petitioner asked for a copy thereof. After a lot of correspondence for a very long time the petitioner was informed by letter dated 18.6.1982 that he should obtain the copy of the order by making an application according to Rules. He was supplied the copy of the order vide letter dated 8.11.1982 which is Anx.5 on record. He has challenged the order of Appellate Authority on the grounds that it is not speaking and the submissions made by the petitioner in his appeal have not been considered at all, for example no adverse remarks in the Confidential Roll were ever communicated to the petitioner but the Administrative Judge in his order has said nothing in this regard. The petitioner in his appeal to the High Court had submitted that there were number of complaints against Prabhulal Tripathi and his Confidential Roll/report was extremely poor so much so that there were adverse confidential reports made against him for the year 1979 but this fact was not considered by the Administrative Judge. It was also submitted in the appeal that Shri Prabhulal Tripathi was given warning on the admi- nistrative side on a number of occasions but this aspect was also not considered by the Appellate Authority. It has been further submitted that the order dated 4.5.1981 is a quasi judicial order and should be speaking one as per the principles of natural justice. The order is not such, as such it should be set aside. Many other grounds have been raised in the writ petition and the petitioner has sought the relief that the order dated 4.5.81 may be quashed so also the order of the District Judge dated 30.8.1980 and the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Munsarim with effect from the date Shri Prabhulal Tripathi has been so appointed with all consequential benefits. (3). The respondents submitted reply dated 12.5.83 admitting that there are no adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner but it has been averred that the Annual Performance Appraisal of the petitioner was not above average. There are remarks against him that he lacks in enthusiasm, that he was always directed to improve his work. (3). The respondents submitted reply dated 12.5.83 admitting that there are no adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner but it has been averred that the Annual Performance Appraisal of the petitioner was not above average. There are remarks against him that he lacks in enthusiasm, that he was always directed to improve his work. So far as complaint of Shri Durga Shankar against the petitioner is concerned, it has been averred in the reply that the complaint made by Shri Durga Shankar against the petitioner was not pressed by him on account of apology tendered by the petitioner and Shri Durga Shankar stated so in his statement recorded during inquiry proceedings. So far as order of learned Appellate Authority is concerned, it has been submitted that the same is speaking one and the Authority considered all the points raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was personally heard. It has been submitted that the District Judge and the Appellate Authority considered the overall record about efficiency of the petitioner in comparison to Shri Prabhulal Tripathi and then came to the conclusion that the service record of Prabhulal Tripathi was better than that of the petitioner. There were no adverse confidential reports against Shri Prabhulal Tripathi for the year 1979. It has been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. (4). Rejoinder was submitted by the petitioner reiterating the facts mentioned in the writ petition. (5). I have heard learned counsel for both the parties in detail and have gone through the record. (6). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the District Judge by which he by passed the petitioner did not give any reason. He submitted that no adverse entry in Annual Performance Appraisal report was aver communi- cated to the petitioner. It was for the first time that the order by passing him cause as a bolt from the blue against which the petitioner preferred appeal and raised a number of contentions in the appeal but the order of learned Appellate Authority, Anx.5, is not a speaking order as it does not tell the reasons to reject the appeal of the petitioner. He elaborated by submitting that the contentions raised in the memo of appeal have not been decided by the Appellate Authority, as such the order is not speaking one. He elaborated by submitting that the contentions raised in the memo of appeal have not been decided by the Appellate Authority, as such the order is not speaking one. He submitted that the seniority of the petitioner could not be over-looked because Munsarims post is not a selection post. It is to be filled up on the basis of seniority cum merit. He submitted that the annual performance report of the petitioner did not contain any adverse entries, he should have been given promotion on the post of Munsarim instead of Shri Prabhulal Tripathi. He also submitted that the Appellate Authority (Administrative Judge) was under the impression that the post of Munsarim was a selection post and the same cannot be claimed on the basis of mere seniority. He further argued that the complaint of Durga Shankar was withdrawn and if any statement of Durga Shankar was recor- ded, which contained something adverse, the same was not communicated to the petitioner. As such it could not be used against him. He submitted that the petitioner was later on given promotion on the post of Munsarim and has retired from the same post but since he was not given promotion when the same was due, it amounted to supersession at that time which could not have been done. He submi- tted that the order of the Appellate Authority (Administrative Judge) as well as of the District Judge should be quashed and it may be ordered that the petitioner was entitled for promotion as Munsarim from 30.8.1980. (7). On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion as Munsarim w.e.f. 30.8.1980. He sub- mitted that he was unfit to hold the post of Munsarim, therefore, he was not given promotion. He submitted that the seniority of the petitioner was disregarded because he was unfit to hold the post of Munsarim. He submitted that the District Judge and the Appellate Authority (Administrative Judge) had seen the record of both the candidates. The entries in the confidential record of Shri Tripathi was that he was an enthusiastic person and performed the task entrusted to him satisfactorily. The District Judge considered the statement of Durga Shankar and entertained doubt about the integrity of Shri Prem Singh, therefore, the petitioner was not given promotion as Munsarim. (8). The entries in the confidential record of Shri Tripathi was that he was an enthusiastic person and performed the task entrusted to him satisfactorily. The District Judge considered the statement of Durga Shankar and entertained doubt about the integrity of Shri Prem Singh, therefore, the petitioner was not given promotion as Munsarim. (8). The post of Munsarim was definitely, at the relevant time, a selection post from amongst the eligible persons. The provisions was that in passing over a person for inefficiency, due weight shall be given to his previous record of service and seniority should be disregard only when the official or the officials passed over are unfit to hold the post to which promotion is to be made. (See note under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1958). (9). So the million dollar question is as to what was the basis to hold the petitioner unfit for the post of Munsarim on 30.8.1980? In para No.1/f of the reply it has been admitted that there are no adverse entries in the service record of the petitioner. The only instance relied upon by the respondents is that Shri Durga Shankar Advocate made a complaint against the petitioner. A preliminary inquiry was instituted during which Durga Shankar made some statement adverse to the petitioner. Then Durga Shankar withdrew his complaint and the District Judge relied upon the statement of Durga Shankar Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such a statement should not have been made the basis to supersede the petitioner because it was never communicated to the petitioner. He also submitted that no adverse ACR was ever communicated to the petitioner though the learned Appellate Authority in his order dated 4.5.1981 has mentioned that the District Judge has observed that according to the entries in the confidential record Shri Prem Singh is a person of average ability and has no initiative and can perform routine duties and cannot tackle new problems without assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such entries were communicated to the petitioner and as such they could not be used against the petitioner at the time of his promotion. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that such entries could not be used in order to supersede the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such entries were communicated to the petitioner and as such they could not be used against the petitioner at the time of his promotion. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that such entries could not be used in order to supersede the petitioner. In Vijay Kumar, I.A.S. vs. State of Maharashtra, (1), it has been held that uncommunicated adverse report should not form the foundation for denial of benefits, which have been extended to his juniors. Admittedly no ACR was communicated to the petitioner. The copy of the statement of Durga Shankar was never supplied to the petitioner, therefore, the statement of Durga Shankar which created doubt in the mind of the learned District Judge about integrity of the petitioner should not have been the basis to deny promotion to him. Similarly, entries in ACR were not communicated. It cannot be said on the basis of these uncommunicated entries that the petitioner was unfit to hold the post of Munsarim. The arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, as stated above, are devoid of force in view of the fact that the petitioner could not have been denied his due on the basis of uncommunicated adverse entries. Later on the petitioner was granted promotion as Munsarim and he has retired from that post. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. (10). Consequently, the writ petition is worth acceptance. The petition is allowed and the order of Appellate Authority (Administrative Judge) dated 4.5.1981, which is Anx.5 on record, is quashed and the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner from 30.8.1980 to the post of Munsarim i.e. the date from which Shri Prabhulal Tripathi was appointed on the post of Munsarim. The petitioner will get all consequential benefits. If necessary, a supernumerary post shall be created w.e.f 30.8.1980 till the petitioner was promoted as Munsarim in order to give him all consequential benefits. No orders as to costs.