Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner while she was working as a Senior Superintendent and on deputation to Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. She had commenced service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Department in 1961 and on the formation of the Civil Supplies Department in 1975, had opted for coming over to the said Department. On 5-7-1983 she had been promoted as Taluk Supply Officer. 2. The history sheet further shows that the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 25-2-1992 and was served with a Memo of Charges for grave irregularities. She had been reinstated in service on 1-3-1993, but the disciplinary proceedings continues. Ultimately, by order dated 4-5-1994, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P6, she was awarded with a punishment of censure. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, in the said order, had held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved beyond doubt, but since she was under suspension for more than one year, a lenient view was taken in the matter. By separate proceedings dated 3-1-1995, the period of suspension was treated as on duty for the purpose of counting of service for the pensionary benefits and leave. What she lost in the meanwhile was opportunity for career prospects; her claims were consistently overlooked for promotion. 3. Now the petitioner had retired from service. Obviously her complaint is that because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings her claim for promotion as District Supply Officer was jeopardised. It is claimed that she was entitled to be promoted as District Supply Officer and had to be adequately compensated by recognizing her right for notional promotion from the date her immediate junior was promoted, and for monetary benefits arising from such promotion. Further claim is that this should reflect in her retirement benefits, including pension. 4. The claim is resisted by the Government. The submission is that the petitioner's claims have no basis and proceed on erroneous assumptions. There cannot be dispute, however, that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner had interfered with her carrer and prospects and it may be examined whether there is any legal basis in the submissions made by the petitioner, so as to warrant interference in these proceedings. 5. There cannot be dispute, however, that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner had interfered with her carrer and prospects and it may be examined whether there is any legal basis in the submissions made by the petitioner, so as to warrant interference in these proceedings. 5. As per Rule 2 of the Kerala Civil Supplies Service Rules, the posts of District Supply Officer and Taluk Supply Officer are selection posts. There is no automatic right for promotion. A select list has to be prepared by the Departmental promotion Committee (DPC), as envisaged by Rule28(b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, as a prelude for awarding promotions. 6. The petitioner submits that promotions had been conferred to her juniors, to the cadre of District Supply Officer from time to time. Her name was not included in the select list that had been prepared for the year 1992 or any of the subsequent years. Though her name had been included in the field of choice for consideration, it is submitted by the Government Pleader that she had been superseded for valid reasons. The petitioner submits that in respect of officers who were under disciplinary proceedings a system of "sealed cover procedure" are to be adopted and their eligibility for promotion from anterior dates, recognising their seniority had to be decided, after culmination of the disciplinary proceedings and depending upon the outcome the penalty imposed was censure which was not recognized as interfering with her rights, and if this procedure had been followed, the promotions would have naturally followed. But this position is not conceded by the Government. Though she might have come in the field of choice ordinarily, it could have been possible to exclude her altogether with reference to the service rules, and the sealed cover system pertains to only such officers, who happened to be included in the select list. 7. In this background, provisions of Rule 28(b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules could be looked into. It is not disputed that promotion to the post of District Supply Officer is not automatic and a selection process is envisaged by the rules. The selection is on the basis of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when they are approximately equal. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28(b) of the K.S. & S.S.R. may be extracted for an easy reference. The selection is on the basis of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when they are approximately equal. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 28(b) of the K.S. & S.S.R. may be extracted for an easy reference. "(4) The Committee shall meet periodically to prepare select lists, in the order of merit, of the Officers selected for appointment. The Committee may also hold ad hoc meetings for the purpose of making selection to particular vacancies whenever occasion arises. The criterion for assessment of merit shall be the confidential reports of the officers. The confidential reports of the officers for at least the preceding three years shall be made available to the Committee for this purpose. Where remediable adverse remarks recorded in the confidential report of a Government servant are not communicated to the officer concerned, such remarks shall be ignored by the Departmental Promotion Committee while considering his case for promotion." The criterion for selection therefore is confidential reports of the officers. The reports, at least for the preceding three years are to be made available to the Committee. The counter affidavit of the Government indicates that the confidential reports of the petitioner have been examined and she was well in the field of consideration, but her claims were not found as satisfactory enough for being included in the select list. Thus the position boils down to the validity of exclusion at the preliminary stage. 8. The petitioner urges that this procedure was irregular. If there are adverse entries in the confidential reports, she should have been advised of the above and so long as they were not so advised, it could not have been relied on. 9. The argument of the petitioner in this regard does not appear to be sustainable in its entirety. As per the rule, the Government is obliged to convey the adverse remarks in the confidential reports, only in respect of remarks which are remediable adverse remarks recorded in the confidential reports. A line of distinction is clearly demarcated. A remediable adverse remark may pertain to the conduct or demeanour of the officer, which, if advised, could be remedied by the officer concerned by a conscious effort. But if the conduct, which is not capable of remedied, has already precipitated and comes to be recorded as an adverse remark, they are not remarks to be communicated to the petitioner, as envisaged by the Rules. But if the conduct, which is not capable of remedied, has already precipitated and comes to be recorded as an adverse remark, they are not remarks to be communicated to the petitioner, as envisaged by the Rules. A misbehaviour, or conduct of such nature, may come in such classes. The petitioner has not challenged the vires of the Rules. Nor it is disclosed as to what were the entries in the confidential records, which prompted the committee to scratch her candidature altogether. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioner's criticism about the Departmental promotion Committee for having taken notice of the remarks that were recorded in the confidential reports is sustainable. In fact they were obliged to take note of those remarks. The position had continued for the subsequent years as well. Therefore, exclusion of her claim was not against the Rules. 10. During the pendency of the original Petition, a direction had been issued to consider her claims for promotion and Ext. P8 dated 19-4-1995 the Government had entered a clear finding that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not find the petitioner eligible for being considered for promotion at that time as well. Even in the case of an officer, who is reinstated after suspension exonerating him of the charges, the Confidential Reports for a period of three years, preceding the date of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, are to be taken notice of. The Rules are clear about this. Therefore, the adverse entries in the Confidential Reports of the petitioner always stood against her. 11. G.O. (P) No. 420 dated 29.12.1967 appears to be the first Government order dealing with these matters. It has undergone amendments, but the basic structure is kept in tact, and act as supplementing and complementing the Rules. Reference about remediable adverse records finds a place there also. Reference to these could also be seen from G.O. (P) No. 344 dated 22.8.1966, which are orders regarding preparation and maintenance of Confidential Reports. Paragraph 7 of the above will disclose the underlying objective. Relevant portion of the same is extracted herein below : "7. Communication of Remarks :- Every employee should know his remediable defects so that he can remove them and improve himself. Paragraph 7 of the above will disclose the underlying objective. Relevant portion of the same is extracted herein below : "7. Communication of Remarks :- Every employee should know his remediable defects so that he can remove them and improve himself. The best results are achieved only if every reporting officer realises that his duty does not end with recording an objective assessment of his subordinate's work and qualities, but extends also to his tendering whenever indicated the necessary advice, guidance and assistance to correct the faults and deficiencies of his subordinates. The appraisal of the reportee's capacities and potential for higher position is undertaken partly with a view to developing his qualities. If this part of the Reporting Officer's duty is properly performed, there should be no difficulty about recording adverse entries, because they would only refer to defects which had persisted despite the reporting officer's efforts to have them corrected. While mentioning any faults/defects, it would therefore be useful if the reporting officer also gives an indication of the efforts he had made by way of guidance, admonition etc., to get the defects removed and the results of such efforts. Where an adverse entry is made, the reporting officer should certify that the defects have been brought to the subordinate's notice." 12. Notwithstanding the detailed discussion the order is silent about the defects which are not remediable . One would hope this also should have adequately been explained, but the Rule is in unambiguous terms, and it requires obedience. By coming in the field of choice alone an officer cannot seek for a place in the select list, though the Rules and the note are not very clear as to the above. But the tenor of the rules shows that ineligibility for at least a few persons is a reality. The further hurdle for the petitioner is that she had not objected to her exclusion within the appropriate time as envisaged by paragraph 8A of G.O. (P) No. 420 dated 29.12.1967, which provides as following : "8A. .. .. ..However, if any Officer who has been superseded and whose name has not been included in the list makes, within one month from the date of publication of the list, a written representation to the convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee requesting a revision of the list, the committee shall consider the representation. .. .. ..However, if any Officer who has been superseded and whose name has not been included in the list makes, within one month from the date of publication of the list, a written representation to the convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee requesting a revision of the list, the committee shall consider the representation. After going through the representation if the Committee feels that some clarification should be obtained from the superseded officer by personal hearing, it may do so and on the basis of such representation of personal hearing if it is of the view that the list already prepared, should be reversed, it may make a recommendation to that effect. .. .. .." Therefore, the case could not have been taken notice of for 1992, 1993 as also 1994. 13. That a censure or warning would not have interfered with the right of promotion also does not come to the assistance of the petitioner, in the aforesaid context, since the above punishment is not projected as a reason for denying promotion. Advertence to Rule 28(b)(4)(e)(i) also might be necessary here. Confidential records to have relevance at this juncture also. The present stand is that the charges against the petitioner stood proved, and the warning was administered taking note of the circumstance that she was in suspension for over a year. Ultimately not only the punishment, but the conduct and demeanour of the officer also has to weigh. The petitioner by her conduct forfeited her claims for career prospects. As such she is not entitled to any reliefs, as prayed for. The Original Petition is dismissed.