JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner commissioned in the Indian Army in the year 1968, was promoted to the rank of Colonel in the year 1990. The petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was posted as Administrative Commandant, Station Head Quarters, Jaipur. He was posted at Dinapur in November, 1990 under Eastern Command. 2. It is stated that the unit of the petitioner provided communication to the Head-quarters CORPS and its unit had been working during counter insurgency operation under adverse conditions. His work was appreciated by his immediate officers; Initiating Officer and Reviewing Officer had inspected the technical efficiency and administration of the petitioner. The Initiating Officer (hereinafter called as 10') was the Chief Signal Officer (Brigadier) of Head Quarters and Reviewing Officer (here-in-after called as 'RO') was the Chief of the Staff (Major General) Head-quarters 3 CORPS. Both of the officers were at the same station as the petitioner. However, the first Technical Officer (here-in-after called as 'FTO') was the Chief Signal Officer (Major General) Head quarters posted at Calcutta. 3. It is stated that 10 and RO who had personally watched the performance of the petitioner and remained very close in exercises, had assessed the petitioner in the ACR for the year 1990-91 and the petitioner was awarded more than 8' overall. It is stated even the RO had assessed the petitioner as over all W. The annual confidential report after the remarks of 10 & RO was sent to the FTO. It is stated that the FTO was either to endorse or to give his own reading if he had personally visited and seen the work of the petitioner and if he had not seen the work of the petitioner he could have only written in remarks as 'in-adequate knowledge'. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the reason that the FTO had never visited the unit of the petitioner at Dinapur in the reporting year nor he had ever met or seen the petitioner and in that situation he could not have reduced the petitioner to over all assessment of 7' in a mechanical manner. It is the case of the petitioner that in case the FTO gives the remarks of 'in-adequate knowledge', in that situation the petitioners' promotional prospects brighten. It is the case of the petitioner that in case the FTO gives the remarks of 'in-adequate knowledge', in that situation the petitioners' promotional prospects brighten. But because he had been awarded over all assessment as 7' instead of 8' by the FTO, who has never seen his work and therefore the action of the FTO was against the statutory instructions, the action of the respondent was not correct so far the year 1990-91 is concerned. 4. Similar is the position in regard to the year 1992-93. The petitioner was posted at Palampur where he was posted on 16.10.1992. It is stated that he had made number of improvements and he had made a request to Brig. S.S. Nakai (Zonal Recruiting Officer), respondent No. 5, who was Initiating Officer to visit Palampur to see for himself the improvements made by the petitioner, Shri Nakai never visited the unit of the petitioner even once upto 25.2.1993, when he had retired. It is stated that Mr. Nakai had no adequate knowledge about the working of the petitioner. But still he had given the low grade of assessment in the ACR for the period from 16.10.1992 to 28.2.1993 without there being any basis and with the malafide intention to mar the promotional prospects of the petitioner. 5. Because of the above-said grading by the officers who had never visited, never seen the petitioner's work, the petitioner was deprived of the promotional rank of Brigadier by the Selection Board in the year 1993. It is stated that there was no adverse remarks ever recorded against the petitioner. The petitioner filed statutory representation which had been rejected vide Annexures-2 and 3 on 1.2.1996 and 14.2.1996 as communicated to the petitioner at Jaipur. The petitioner relies on Annexure-4 instructions issued by the Head-quarters to the effect that where the technical performance is required to be assessed and where the FTO may not get the opportunity to see the officer closely enough to render an objective assessment, in such cases, the FTOs may endorse remarks 'inadequate knowledge'. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the instructions Annexure-4 and other statutory rules if the column is filled-up by the FTO as 'inadequate knowledge', he shall be promoted to the rank of Brigadier. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the instructions Annexure-4 and other statutory rules if the column is filled-up by the FTO as 'inadequate knowledge', he shall be promoted to the rank of Brigadier. The petitioner relies on the instructions for gradation of the confidential reports as issued by the Military Secretary's Branch, Army Head-quarters, as reproduced in the writ petition, reads as under : "147. The reporting officers must resist the tendency of rendering reports based on an inadequate knowledge of the subject officer. A few instances are listed below : (a) The reporting officer after having endorsed reports in a particular year, in the subsequent years, endorses remarks like 'I don't know the officer'. Such statement is indicative of the fact that the report endorsed earlier was based on inadequate knowledge. (b) In addition to the remarks, 'don't know the Officer, but his performance seems to have been satisfactory' over all assessment marks have also been awarded by the reporting officer. (c) While endorsing the remarks, 'I agree with the 10 or RO', the subject reporting officer awards only Average marks contrary to High Average and above average assessment of the 10, and the RO without assigning any reasons for doing do. Such reporting, apart from being inconsistent with the assessment of the 10 and RO, also shows lack of adequate knowledge about the Officer reported upon. 148. It is advisable that the reporting officers prepare a list of officers, whose reports they will be required to endorse after the reporting year and make it a point to visit these officers and observe their performance during the reporting period, in addition to studying their record of service. The reporting officer should endorse the reports only when they know the officer sufficiently enough to carry out an independent and meaningful assessment without leaving on the assessment of their subordinate reporting officer, otherwise, they should be candid enough to state, `Unable to comment due to inadequate knowledge, Or I did not have occasion to observe the officer in sufficient detail hence unable to comment." 7. A prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner to the rank ' for promotion to the post of Brigadier on the basis that the FTO and SRO had 'No adequate Knowledge' in regard to both the periods as mentioned above and to assess the petitioner for the disputed period on the basis of remarks assessed by the 10 and RO. 8. Written statement has been filed by the respondent. A preliminary objection has been taken that because of the reason that the cause of action has arisen in Nagaland and Palampur and, therefore, the writ petition should have been filed either of the High Court of the territories mentioned above. It is not denied that the FTO had no occasion to watch and closely see the work of the petitioner. It is mentioned in the written statement that the assessment 7 denotes an officer as 'above average' and it is not adverse. It Is further submitted that he was also considered in the Board held in March 1995, but he was found un-fit. It is not denied that had the assessment of the petitioner been made as 8' or the remarks would have been written as `in-adequate knowledge', the result of the petitioner's promotion might have been charged. 9. Record was shown to the court. For the years 1986 and 1987 10 and RO had graded the petitioner as 8' Similar is the situation for the year 1988-89 and 1989-90. The SRO and FTO had not put any remarks. For the year from September 1990 to August 1991, the 10 has graded him as 8', SRO as 8', the FTO as 7' (this is the matter involved in the writ petition). Similarly, from September 1991 to December 1991 he has been graded by 10 and RO as 8', by SRO as'7' and by FTO as'8'. Awarding of grade 7' by SRO is disputed for the reason that the SRO had never visited the unit of the petitioner. For the remaining years right upto 1995 the grading is W. 10. Similarly, from September 1991 to December 1991 he has been graded by 10 and RO as 8', by SRO as'7' and by FTO as'8'. Awarding of grade 7' by SRO is disputed for the reason that the SRO had never visited the unit of the petitioner. For the remaining years right upto 1995 the grading is W. 10. Though this court cannot go into the grading being awarded by various officers but in the present case it is the submission of the petitioner that as per the instructions issued by the department which are statutory in nature, if the SRO or FTO has never made any visit, seen or watched the work of the officer, he is not in a position to grade the officer and can only write 'in-adequate knowledge' and in such a situation the petitioners' grading would be treated as 8' through-out and grading 8' would mean 'very good'. According to the submission made by the counsel for the parties, grading 7' means above average, grading 8' means very good and grading 9' means, outstanding. 11. There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of Annexure-4 and the instructions 147 and 148 as reproduced above, it is a case where the SRO and FTO during the relevant time had never seen the petitioner, never met him, never watched his work, never visited the place and in such a situation for the technical work being done by the petitioner instead of grading him lower than given by 10 and RO, the officer concern as per the instruction should have given the remarks 'in-adequate knowledge'. 12. For the reasons that the petitioner was informed of the result of his statutory appeal at Jaipur and in view of the nature of duties attached to the post of the petitioner and also for the reason that no prejudice is caused to the respondent if the case is filed at Jaipur in the matter relating to Head-quarters, the preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction is not accepted. 13. 13. For the discussions and reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that the respondent would reconsider the case of the petitioner as per law and in case the grading given by the SRO and FTO as 7' is ignored and changed to 'in-adequate knowledge', the case of the petitioner would be reconsidered on merits as existing at the relevant time. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******