JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.:- The petitioner was working as Havaldar/Laboratory Assistant in the Indian Army. He was due for promotion as Naib Subedar/Junior Commissioned Officer in December, 1995 but was superseded. According to him, there was no justification for his supersession as he fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and at no point of time he was conveyed j adverse remarks. But by letter dated 30.12.1995, AnnexureP-1 to the petition, he was informed that reasons for his supersession were that he did not fulfill Annual Confidential Reports grading criteria and was short or senior Cadre Course. According to the petitioner, if he could not fulfill Annual Confidential Report criteria for the reasons that adverse entry was contained in any of the Annual Confidential Reports for the period 1990 to 1996, it could not be considered as it was never conveyed to him and so. far Senior Cadre Course is concerned he had completed it in November, 1995 and it appears that the respondents failed to reconcile the record before considering him for promotion. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar (Junior Commissioned Officer) with effect from the date his junior Shri Rameshwar Dass, Havaldar No. 13938181 was promoted, considering him as fully qualified and eligible for the said promotion. 2. The respondents in their reply filed on the affidavit of Lt. Col. S.C. Nanda, have taken the stand that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar (LA) against the existing vacancy on 1.11.1995, but was not found eligible for promotion as he did not satisfy the criteria in respect of preceding five years ACRs as laid down in letter dated 18.1.1993, Annexure R-1 to the reply affidvit. The relevant para 6 of this letter is as under :- "6. For promotion to the rank of Nb/Ris/Nb Sub. (a) Five reports in the rank of Have will be mandatory. f (b) Three out of the last five reports rendered in the rank of Have should be Above Average and the remaining two should be ‘High Average. (c) Out of the five reports two reports should be on Regimental duty or as an Instructor in any Army School of Instructions and out of which at least one should be above average. (c) Out of the five reports two reports should be on Regimental duty or as an Instructor in any Army School of Instructions and out of which at least one should be above average. (d) Should have been recommended for promotion on the last three reports." The respondents have further clarified that as against the said criteria the petitioner was having three above average, one higher average and one average Annual Confidential Reports from 1991 to 1995. It was the Annual Confidential Report of 1992 which contained average grading besides the remarks "not recommended". It is admitted that the petitioner had passed Senior Cadre Course on 18.11.1995 whereas, he was considered against the vacancy on 1.11.1995. Any how the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar due to his non-fulfilling Annual Confidential Report grading and entry "not recommended" for promotion in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992. 3. In the rejoinder-affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in his petition and denied contrary stated in the reply. He has further asserted that remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992 "not recommended" for promotion were adverse remarks which were never conveyed to him, as such take Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992 in which he was graded average could not be considered for his promotion. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we do not find any merit in .this writ petition, as the petitioner was duly considered for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar against the existing vacancy on 1.1.1.1995 but superseded, as admittedly he failed to fulfil Annual Confidential Reports grading criteria, that is, three above average and remaining two high average reports out of five reports for the period 1991 to 1996., Admittedly, the petitioner had average Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992, besides the remarks "not recommended" for promotion contained therein. The submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that since remarks "not recommended" for promotion are adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992, which were never conveyed to the petitioner, the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992, could not be taken into account, is without any substance in view of the instructions contained in para 17 of the AMC ROI 5/90 which provides that adverse remarks/weak points in the Annual Confidential Report will invariably be communicated to the ratee, irrespective of the grading awarded or recommended/not recommended. We would re-produce para 17 hereunder to show that its mere reading makes it clear that the adverse remarks/weak points which are compulsorily communicated do not inolude the remarks "not commended". Had it been so, it would not have been provided in para 17 of the instructions that adverse remarks weak points in the Annual Confidential Report will invirably be communicated irrespective of the grading awarded or recommended/not recommended :- "17. In the event of an individuals performance being adjudged below average it is obligatory on the part of the 10 and the RO that periodical warnings are administered to him in writing and a record of such warnings/performance counselling is kept, before grading the individual below average in the ACR. However, adverse remarks/weak points in the ACR, irrespective of the grading awarded or R/NR will invariably be communicated to the rate, his signature obtained and communication pasted/recorded in the ACR." 5. A reference to para 16 of these instructions, which provides that in the case of NCOs graded Average, discretion to recommend them for promotion or otherwise should be left to the IO/RO and they need not justify the non-recommendations, makes it further clear that the remarks "not recommended" in the Annual Confidential Report graded Average are not adverse remarks. Had it been so it would have been made obligatory on the part of the IO/RO to give a periodical warning in writing and keep record of such warning/performance counselling, as required in the case of adverse remarks, as per para 17 of the instructions. If the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and the remarks "not recommended" are held as adverse remarks, it will be in violation of the very provision contained in para 17 of the instructions. If the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and the remarks "not recommended" are held as adverse remarks, it will be in violation of the very provision contained in para 17 of the instructions. Hence, we reject this submission and hold that the remarks "not recommended" for promotion contained in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1992 are not adverse remarks, liable to be communicated to the petitioner and the respondents have rightly considered the said Annual Confidential Report grading the petitioner as average alongwith other Annual Confidential Reports for the period 1990 to 1996 to hold him ineligible and superseded him for promotion to the post of Naib Subedar against the vacancy on 1.11.1995. 6. No other point is raised on behalf of the petitioner. 7. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.